[aur-general] Handling coincidental name collisions

[alad]

Am 09.02.2019 um 20:35 schrieb Xyne:
> alad via aur-general wrote:
>
>> 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.
> I somehow doubt that epilepsy was at any point a consideration in the
> deletion :P
>
>
>> 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.
> The deletion request itself gives an invalid reason: it was not "supersed"(ed)
> by the unrelated package in community. Also, just following the procedure
> (report, delete) doesn't make any difference to the validity of the deletion.
> Reports are just for regular users to bring the package to the attention of a
> TU.

Point taken, though it's always better when there's a report available
than not. That way anyone can later look up the reason of deletion,
instead of relying on information from whoever happened to be subscribed
to the relevant package.

>
> The issue is that there are plenty of packages in the AUR that most people
> would never find useful, but that's never been a criterion for deletion in
> itself. The issue here is that seemingly arbitrary discretion was applied
> without any real reasoning given.

I admit that, at least for my handling of user requests for package
deletions, there's a *lot* of implicit criteria whether to accept them
or not, including at what point in time to do so.

It would probably be some undertaking to formalize these, in the bylaws
or wherever else. A first step could be to check and expand the wiki
criteria where needed. [2] [3]

[2]
https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_User_Repository#Rules_of_submission
[3] https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/AUR_Trusted_User_Guidelines

>
>
>> 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.
> I agree that it was likely just an inattentive mistake while working through
> the requests. Nevertheless, it led to a user bringing it up on the forum so I
> felt it necessary to address it here. It really isn't a big deal, but it would
> be better to avoid repeating in the future if possible.
>
> As the number of TUs continues to grow, we have to make sure that we agree on
> how policy is meant to be implemented, otherwise it's very unfair to some users.
>
>
>
>
>
>> [1]
>> https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-requests/2019-February/029689.html
>>
>> Alad

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/attachments/20190210/ec15fb16/attachment.sig>