[aur-general] Bundled applications policy?

WorMzy Tykashi wormzy.tykashi at gmail.com
Wed Jan 15 05:34:01 EST 2014



Maintainer has abandoned the package in the meantime, so please remove
the package (link for convenience:
https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/manarchy/ ).



On 26 December 2013 16:43, WorMzy Tykashi <wormzy.tykashi at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
> I posted a message on the package, but the maintainer has not
> responded yet. Their email is also not a recognised email address (I
> have tried to contact them regarding my suggestions)
> I should have clarified in my last mail that this package is not my
> own, but one that was brought to my attention on the Arch forums by a
> new user seeking assistance with it.
> Since the owner is unreachable, would it be possible to remove the
> package now (despite the two week rule). If preferred, I'll write a
> PKGBUILD for the beta aircrack-ng package and update the theharvester
> PKGBUILD so that the AUR status quo is maintained. I'll immediately
> aurphan these packages so that someone else can maintain them,
> however, as I have no interest in these tools..
> Please let me know what your thoughts are, and how we should best proceed.
> Happy holidays,
> WorMzy
> On 20 December 2013 13:35, Rashif Ray Rahman <schiv at archlinux.org> wrote:
>> On 20 December 2013 04:20, WorMzy Tykashi <wormzy.tykashi at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 19 December 2013 18:44, Rashif Ray Rahman <schiv at archlinux.org> wrote:
>>>> Just provide for and conflict with the relevant packages and you don't
>>>> give anyone any trouble.
>>> It's halfway there, it doesn't conflict with or provide theharvester
>>> package, though that's something I was going to mention when I comment
>>> about some changes they should make to the PKGBUILD (shouldn't be an
>>> 'any' package, binaries shouldn't be in /usr/sbin, etc.). I just
>>> wanted to check that such packages are allowed before prompting them
>>> to fix it up.
>>>> But if this whole thing is a package of a real
>>>> software collection (and not just a mash-up by a packager) then I see
>>>> no problem.
>>> It's the latter, the package pulls from two different, unrelated
>>> sources and merges them into one package. The only thing is, neither
>>> source is otherwise available on the AUR or official repositories (as
>>> far as I can tell).
>> A better way to rephrase what I meant is this: if it's a useful bundle
>> that people will use (if some people find the beta dep better), then
>> there is no problem. The "Arch way" would be to provide a separate
>> package for the beta dep instead, but you can tell if your idea (of
>> bundling) is working if nobody says anything about that.
>> --
>> GPG/PGP ID: C0711BF1

More information about the aur-general mailing list