[aur-general] Account Suspended, No Reason Given
shoober420 at gmail.com
Sun Nov 4 07:55:27 UTC 2018
Alright, so lets compare the current sdl2 package in the official
repos, to the one in the AUR. I did indeed try to contact the
"sdl2-hg" maintainer over half a year ago, who also maintains the
"lib32-sdl2-hg" package, with no response. I flagged "lib32-sdl2-hg"
over half a year ago, and that package is also maintained by the same
person who does "sdl2-hg".
I'm not trying to sound disrespectful, but common sense tells you,
that if you compared the two packages, the AUR one is seriously
outdated. Also, taking into account the comment from "Teteros on
2018-10-14 16:41", further confirming how outdated it is, and the
author continuing to not address or response, makes it even more clear
why it was flagged outdated. I just figured common sense would have
shown why it was flagged by me, especcially my comment along with it,
stating I have a PKGBUILD ready for upload.
On 11/4/18, Ian Douglas Scott <ian at iandouglasscott.com> wrote:
> Quoting shoober420 via aur-general (2018-11-03 22:19:45)
>> in this discussion, someone accusing me of not contacting the
>> "sdl2-hg" package maintainer, and trying to use that against me, when
>> I for certain did over half a year ago, AND flagged the lib32-sdl2-hg
>> package in the same time frame. He obviously orphaned it, no question.
> I don't know if anyone else mentioned that, but when I did I wasn't
> trying to use it against you. I was just suggesting it as a reason not
> to accept the orphan request.
> Looking at the comments on sdl2-hg, the last comment by the maintainer
> and the last update of the package is 2017-04-24. Then there's a comment
> by someone else, and a comment by you on 2018-11-01, a couple days ago,
> the same date the package was flagged out of date (presumably by you).
> I suppose you contacted the maintainer by email? That's fine, but you
> should have mentioned it in the orphan request. Otherwise the person
> reviewing the request had no way of knowing that.
> Basically, the problem in this case, regardless of any previous history
> on the forum, is that you didn't provide any explanation of why the
> package should be orphaned in the orphan request. Nor does looking at
> the comment thread make it clear the why the package should be orphaned.
> The TU closing the request could arguably have given more of a reason,
> but essentially they gave as much of a reason to close the request as
> you included in the request for why the package should be orphaned.
More information about the aur-general