[aur-general] audacity3

[Sam Mulvey]

On 6/22/21 1:48 AM, Caleb Maclennan via aur-general wrote:
> As background, many years ago when working as an audio engineer I used to
> use it in production nearly full time. I'm quite familiar with it's past
> and the weird development practices upstream (such as forked toolkit
> versions). I am no longer in that field and only occasionally dabble with
> it for hobby purposes. 

I grant that I'm not a part of the TU discussion, have little interest 
in the TU process, and only manage one significant package, but audacity 
is relevant to my interests as I am a community broadcast engineer and 
use arch pretty much everywhere in that context.   I'm in audacity every 
day.  It is as important to my work flow as my text editor is.

I fully support the efforts to tame audacity3 to the point that I took 
some shots at it privately.  Keeping it out of the repos is a good 
idea.  But most of my show producers and all of my clients use other 
operating systems and are already on audacity3, and I am in no position 
to dictate what version they can run.  I already get aup3 files from 
clients now.  After seeing packages repeatedly disappear, I created a 
package that compiled it as upstream demands, dumped it all in /opt, 
named it "audacity-bs" for obvious reasons, and called it a day.   It is 
not a thing I would even think of putting on AUR.

But now my confusion at the disappearing packages is now replaced with 
confusion that using collaborative tools to solve a non-trivial problem 
is prohibited in this case where it is not in others, just as Caleb 
said.  This feels like a political issue eclipsing a real technical 
issue for real users.  If this is not an exception, there should be no 
exceptions and it should be made more clear.

I'm not interested in having it out on the forum or the AUR comments, 
I'm not much for that sort of thing.  So I'm late to this party.   But 
it is important enough to me to amplify my bafflement.

-Sam