[aur-general] [PRQ#37061] Deletion Request for taskfile-gotask-git

[Martin Rys]

(resending as I was not subscribed to aur-general before)

> It tab-completes very great. And even earlier than in your version.

Only if you remember it starts with a 'g', instead of the original 't'.
If you're following official documentation and trying to use 'task'
and wondering why it's red and not found, tab-complete will save you
there.

> Moreover, before making this package happen I was speaking with original
> maintainer via email, and he declines binary renaming "because docs says
> it's task". Moreover I agree with Egor - why should we change names to
> make a mess in user's brains while reading documentation?

Because the alternative is making the package conflict with `task`, so
one cannot have both installed on the system. That is worse.
The user is free to setup an alias to use 'task' as per the
documentation if they do not also use community/task.

> As I can see, you've just picked up this package and "fixed" it without
> even trying to contact me and filed a deletion request for package that
> fixes problem in more proper way (using org's name).

The package did not download, was out of date, did not build,
conflicted with [community], had missing completions (still does for
fish/ps to be honest) and had a wrong license.

The proper way to deal with those is not creating yet another AUR
package, the proper way is to fix the existing one, which I have done,
and then noticed you duplicated the package, hence I filed this
deletion request.

> Again, I'm asking to reconsider and withdraw/deny this request.

https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/AUR_submission_guidelines#Rules_of_submission
See second rule here, your package at this point is just naming the
binary differently, which is just pointless duplication, let's rather
reach consensus on what it should be named as.

Maybe this entire issue should perhaps be raised upstream as 'task' is
very generic. Taskwarrior started in 2008 and task in 2017. Though I
doubt anything useful would come of it.

Anyway the options are -
A) go-task
B) task-go
C) keep task and conflict with community/task
D) Something else

Martin

On Mon, Aug 22, 2022 at 3:02 PM Martin Rys <spleefer90 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > It tab-completes very great. And even earlier than in your version.
>
> Only if you remember it starts with a 'g', instead of the original 't'.
> If you're following official documentation and trying to use 'task'
> and wondering why it's red and not found, tab-complete will save you
> there.
>
> > Moreover, before making this package happen I was speaking with original
> > maintainer via email, and he declines binary renaming "because docs says
> > it's task". Moreover I agree with Egor - why should we change names to
> > make a mess in user's brains while reading documentation?
>
> Because the alternative is making the package conflict with `task`, so
> one cannot have both installed on the system. That is worse.
> The user is free to setup an alias to use 'task' as per the
> documentation if they do not also use community/task.
>
> > As I can see, you've just picked up this package and "fixed" it without
> > even trying to contact me and filed a deletion request for package that
> > fixes problem in more proper way (using org's name).
>
> The package did not download, was out of date, did not build,
> conflicted with [community], had missing completions (still does for
> fish/ps to be honest) and had a wrong license.
>
> The proper way to deal with those is not creating yet another AUR
> package, the proper way is to fix the existing one, which I have done,
> and then noticed you duplicated the package, hence I filed this
> deletion request.
>
> > Again, I'm asking to reconsider and withdraw/deny this request.
>
> https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/AUR_submission_guidelines#Rules_of_submission
> See second rule here, your package at this point is just naming the
> binary differently, which is just pointless duplication, let's rather
> reach consensus on what it should be named as.
>
> Maybe this entire issue should perhaps be raised upstream as 'task' is
> very generic. Taskwarrior started in 2008 and task in 2017. Though I
> doubt anything useful would come of it.
>
> Anyway the options are -
> A) go-task
> B) task-go
> C) keep task and conflict with community/task
> D) Something else
>
> Martin