[aur-general] Can my AUR package be reinstated?
connor.behan at gmail.com
Thu Oct 5 06:20:26 UTC 2017
On 30/09/17 12:00 PM, Alad Wenter via aur-general wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 30, 2017 at 04:02:00AM +0000, Adam Fontenot via
> aur-general wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 12:19:34PM +0000, Alad Wenter via aur-general wrote
>>> On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 02:17:45AM +0000, Adam Fontenot via
>>> aur-general wrote:
>>>> Hi all,
>>>> The TU "alad" deleted my package, firefox-clean, from the AUR. I'm
>>>> assuming this is a mistake, but I can't contact alad directly because
>>>> their email is hidden on their profile. At first glance, it may appear
>>>> that my version of the Firefox PKGBUILD in Extra does not do anything
>>>> notable, but this is not the case. My package is intended to do three
>>> It's not a mistake. Check the submission guidelines ; a package
>>> should only be submitted if it's not overly specialized and useful to
>>> more than 1 user. In this case, all but a few users will be able to
>>> achieve what this package offers by configuration of the regular firefox
>>> package in the repositories.
>> I disagree strongly. It is useful to multiple people: not only did the
>> package already have feedback (a comment from a user), it was
>> extremely popular when I posted about it on Reddit the day before you
>> deleted it: https://www.reddit.com/r/archlinux/comments/72id6q/firefoxclean_a_firefox_build_for_power_users_in/
> In that same thread, the top comments reflect the decision on deleting
> this package. It should then not come as a surprise that the package
> only had a single AUR vote (which are what matters).
>> Furthermore, you have been deleting dozens of AUR packages in the last
>> week since you became a TU. Respectfully, perhaps you should check to
>> see if your expectations for AUR inclusion are quite as stringent as
>> those of the other TUs?
> You should check before asking consensus from the TU team that your
> argument isn't based on personal attacks against them.
Regarding the "survey of TUs", I think this is a bit of an overreach.
Although the patches are trivial by themselves, rebasing them against
every new version and updating them for API breaks is bound to be a lot
of work. An AUR submitter who takes on this task as a favor to 2 or 3
fans is helping them a lot more than someone who changes a configure
flag of a 1MB program.
>>> If you had such concern about these "features"
>>> and wanted to disable them at compile time, there's existing packages
>>> which take this further e.g. firefox-esr-privacy. 
>>>  https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/firefox-esr-privacy/
>> Oddly enough, my AUR package does most of what this one does and more,
>> but it has the extra advantage of tracking the latest version of
>> Firefox instead of ESR.
> Not really, as any glance over the patches in question shows.
I should add that I would not personally use the package and this is
part of the reason why. Building Firefox is a pain because the team
intentionally ignores the norms of Linux distro packaging. So if I were
building it myself, I would want it to be ESR.
>>> A restart button is available through an addon. 
>>>  https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/restart-my-fox
>> This will not be usable when Firefox 57 hits, because it (along with
>> all other restart addons), isn't compatible with webextensions. I've
>> been purging all XUL extensions from my browser, and that's why I
>> wrote the patch as a replacement.
> Regardless of any speculation on your behalf regarding the addon's
> functionality in future, it remains trivial functionality.
>> If there's a consensus among TUs that packages like mine are not
>> welcome on the AUR, I'm happy to back down and host the PKGBUILD on
> The community guidelines are clear and visible to all on the wiki,
> including a warning that packages that ignore them are up for deletion.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
More information about the aur-general