[aur-general] Deletion of vi-vim-symlink and neovim-symlinks

[Doug Newgard]

On Fri, 22 Apr 2022 08:31:27 -0700
Brett Cornwall <ainola at archlinux.org> wrote:

> On 2022-04-22 09:58, Doug Newgard via aur-general wrote:
> >Recently vi-vim-symlink and neovim-symlinks were deleted from the AUR. These
> >are used by a lot of people to set up their systems, and a lot of people
> >want to know why [1]. They do not violate any AUR rules and have been
> >available in the AUR for a very long time, well over 6 years for
> >neovim-symlinks (about the time neovim became a thing) and over a decade for
> >vi-vim-symlink, but I can't date that one as it predates the current AUR
> >system by a long ways.
> >
> >The reason given for this was:  
> >> This is more appropriately managed via the user shell's
> >> PATH/configuration.  
> >This is completely bogus. First off, PATH has nothing to do with anything
> >here. Second, the shell's configuration doesn't work. Making aliases doesn't
> >work when other programs call vi or vim. It doesn't even work for something
> >like `sudo vim`. This is not a substitute in any way.
> >
> >Just because one TU doesn't find it personally useful or doesn't understand
> >why someone would use a package doesn't mean it shouldn't exist. This is a
> >similar situation to the -bin package issue, except there's not even a rule
> >to misinterpret on this one. If you don't want to use a package, don't, but
> >please don't force your views on everyone.  
> 
> Hi, Doug!
> 
> Firstly, please consider that I was not the one to have accepted the 
> request I made, so at least *two* TUs didn't find it useful ;).
> 
> Secondly, please remember that TUs exist to actually "force" our views 
> onto everyone via quality control.

And where did you come up with this? Rules violations, sure, but forcing your
personal preferences via "quality control", being completely subjective.

> These packages fall into personal 
> configuration territory with a rather heavy-handed approach.

So you're saying this falls under:
https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/AUR_submission_guidelines#Rules_of_submission
> Make sure the package you want to upload is useful. Will anyone else want to
> use this package? Is it extremely specialized? If more than a few people would
> find this package useful, it is appropriate for submission. The AUR and
> official repositories are intended for packages which install generally
> software and software-related content, including one or more of the following:
> executable(s); configuration file(s); online or offline documentation for
> specific software or the Arch Linux distribution as a whole; media intended to
> be used directly by software."

Note that this specifically says that configurations *are* allowed, as long as
they are useful to others. The popularity that you dismiss prove that these
packages qualify. As such, I think I'll be re-uploading unless you can show me
where this violates the rules.