[aur-general] Why were my 'makedeb-beta' and 'makedeb-alpha' packages deleted?

[Hunter Wittenborn]

Why were my packages deleted again? They just got deleted by grawlinson again - could you please explain what exactly is the problem with my packages?



> If users really want to run the latest, they can run a `-git` version.



Again, I have multiple releases, and I'd like users to be able to choose between them. None of the three releases are meant to be like '-git' packages, as they're all versioned, and the only one that would necessarily be somewhat like '-git' would be 'makedeb-alpha', but my current system, again, has these all versioned, and I'd prefer it be kept in the same manner as makedeb is being maintained across other platforms.



---

Hunter Wittenborn

mailto:hunter at hunterwittenborn.com

https://www.hunterwittenborn.com

https://github.com/hwittenborn






---- On Thu, 16 Dec 2021 21:23:11 -0600 Kevin Morris via aur-general <aur-general at lists.archlinux.org> wrote ----



Mistakes are made. As was already done, deleted packages can be 
restored via the git interface. I understand your difference, 
I was just explaining why one may have made that deletion request. 
 
Of course, the user who made the request and the TU who accepted it 
become aware that this was a mistake, and they'll remember it for the 
future. 
 
The platform is not automatically moderated at all. It is generally 
easier for a maintainer to reach out for a request being problematic 
than trying to reach out to every maintainer who owns packages 
that requests are made for; which would absolutely slow down these 
actions behind a wall of logistics. 
 
The last point may be nice for an org who wishes that their packages 
are never touched, but, this is a user-run platform, and with that 
comes the fact that TUs need to sometimes make decisions without 
input from owners of the packages. 
 
It is what it is, and that's most likely how it happened. It's not 
the end of the world, as you know, since your package was already 
reinstated back to what it was before the deletion occurred. 
 
Please consider this a minor inconvenience. It's not something that 
dramatically changes anything about the topic in question, and it 
does not affect your project in a very bad way overall -- it was 
a mishap, and mishaps happen. 
 
Mistakes are OK. What isn't okay is then returning and arguing that 
the mistake wasn't a mistake -- that is not what's happening. 
 
Best, 
Kevin 
 
On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 08:15:52PM -0600, Hunter Wittenborn via aur-general wrote: 
> It's the same reason packages like 'google-chrome-beta' [1] and 'google-chrome-dev' [2] exist, it's just so users can use more cutting-edge releases if they so choose. I just use '-beta' and '-alpha' as my version of the '-beta' and '-dev'  versions, they're all part of my actual program's Git repository, they're just named such to describe the nature of the release. 
> 
> 
> 
> I could see the possible confusion with it being thought that these were prerelease-like versions that are just temporary codenames that'll be obsoleted by new ones in the future, but again, this could easily have been seen by looking at the PKGBUILDs, and equally as important at the upstream repository [3]. 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I'm not trying to create a bunch of drama, I'm just really wanting to know how this deletion could have even been submitted if everything was properly checked, as this becomes quite an issue when I'm wanting these packages to be reliably available to end users. 
> 
> 
> 
> [1]: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/google-chrome-beta/ 
> 
> [2]: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/google-chrome-dev/ 
> 
> [3]: https://github.com/makedeb/makedeb/branches 
> 
> 
> 
> --- 
> 
> Hunter Wittenborn 
> 
> mailto:mailto:hunter at hunterwittenborn.com 
> 
> https://www.hunterwittenborn.com 
> 
> https://github.com/hwittenborn 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---- On Thu, 16 Dec 2021 18:52:50 -0600 Kevin Morris via aur-general <mailto:aur-general at lists.archlinux.org> wrote ---- 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't speak for grawlinson, but I did want to bring up a point 
> that, off the top of my head, might be a reason for deletion requests. 
> 
> In software, `alpha` is used for a release before a `beta` or a 
> straight up release. `beta` is used in the same way, but is more tightly 
> coupled directly behind an official release. 
> 
> Most of the time, projects do the following: 
> 1. Release alpha, get testing done. 
> 2. Release beta, obsolete alpha, get testing done. 
> 3. Release for real, obsolete alpha/beta which was previously released. 
> 
> So, normally, alpha and beta packages are just earlier versions of 
> their non-alpha or non-beta counterparts. What is the exact point 
> of your `-alpha` and `-beta` packages if `makedeb` exists and can 
> be used? 
> 
> Best, 
> Kevin 
> 
> -- 
> Kevin Morris 
> Software Developer 
> 
> Identities: 
>  - kevr @ Libera 
 
-- 
Kevin Morris 
Software Developer 
 
Identities: 
 - kevr @ Libera