[aur-general] Handling coincidental name collisions

[alad]

Am 09.02.2019 um 14:49 schrieb Xyne:
> On 2019-02-09 14:36 +0100
> alad via aur-general wrote:
>
>> The "original" lsf looks like a joke/troll package to me, rather than
>> "trivial". I'd have deleted it even without community duplicate.
>>
>> Alad
> To me it just looks like the package of someone discovering bash programming
> with ANSI escape codes and wanting to share. The fact that it's on github with
> a README.md and a preview is an argument against it being a joke/troll.
>
> Please explain why you feel differently and why such packages should be removed
> from the AUR. What exactly are your criteria for allowing a package to remain?
>
> The discussion is important because we need to have a general consensus on
> deletion criteria. Rogue TUs can't be allowed to roam the AUR deleting whatever
> they personally don't find useful on a given day.
>
> Xyne

For the record: I did not delete, request for deletion, nor upload
apackage with same name to community.

When I look at the removed package however, I see a bash script which
takes up all available resources to display an animation which may
induce severe health issues to some users, i.e. induce epileptic attacks. 

When the package furthermore has no other defined purpose - as Morten
pointed out, this is clearly something overly specialized - *and* the
deletion was handled according to procedure (with a deletion request,
see below), then I don't see the issue.

On the deletion request: it can be seen at [1]. It likely should have
been accepted by a different TU than the requester, as well as given
more time than 11 minutes before acception. Now if this were some
systemic issue, rather than the occasional mistake any of us might make,
then I could see why we'd have this discussion. In my experience, it is
the occasional mistake.

[1]
https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-requests/2019-February/029689.html

Alad