[aur-requests] [PRQ#7392] Deletion Request for bauerbill-over-pacaur

Kieran Colford kieran at kcolford.com
Tue Jan 31 05:12:16 UTC 2017

1) If you don't believe those packages should exist then why haven't any of
them been flagged for deletion? They're right there on the dependency
lists, you can find them pretty easily. The precedent has already been set,
you are way too late to start cleaning up these packages you deem unfit for
the AUR.

2) It is far more modular to have the various Aur helpers be
interchangeable rather than repeat the same code over and over again with
each upstream package. This is not a bug that makes sense to upstream when
there are so many upstreams to simultaneously work with. That being said,
it may make sense to bring all Aur helpers under a single unified interface
and have a package for that, but good luck dragging the community kicking
and screaming along with you.

There are thousands of bad packages in the AUR. Why does this one deserve
such belligerence? What you may see as useless, I see as entirely valuable
and vice versa. There is only so much a mere shell alias can accomplish
while a full package actually articulates with pacman's logic, which is
what I require.

Furthermore, your ad hominem sentiments are unnecessary and crass. They
could easily have been left out of your reply.

On Mon, Jan 30, 2017, 11:35 PM Eli Schwartz, <eschwartz93 at gmail.com> wrote:

On 01/30/2017 06:15 PM, Kieran Colford wrote:
> No one as expressed a valid reason for removal aside from an unclear
> purpose. I have corrected that now so it should be fine.

This doesn't appear to have made its way to the aur-requests ML, I
assume kcolford is not subscribed and therefore his email was rejected.

And I am pretty sure this package is still just as useless as it was
before the pkgesc was modified, given that rewording it to say the same
thing does not actually add a new purpose that wasn't there before.

I suggest that people who want to use bauerbill should go ahead and do
so, rather than feeling some sort of psychological need to type "pacaur"
into their interactive shell prompt in preference to "bauerbill". And if
you really need that psychological need, then ~/.bashrc is your friend;
stop uploading your personal aliases to the AUR.

As for "satisfy[ing] any dependencies on pacaur", I cannot imagine why
you would need such a thing, since pacaur is not the type of package
that other packages would be depending on. Except for multiply-layered
AUR helpers, which 1) shouldn't exist, and 2) should have
interchangeable backends for their multiply-layered bad idea, so file an
upstream bug.

Eli Schwartz


Signed, Kieran Colford
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-requests/attachments/20170131/a7ba743e/attachment.html>

More information about the aur-requests mailing list