[aur-requests] [PRQ#13165] Deletion Request for mailcap-mime-types Accepted

[Eli Schwartz]

On 12/31/18 7:48 AM, Samuel Williams wrote:
> Hi Eli,
> 
> I’m sorry I seem to have hit a nerve.
> 
> The issue has been discussed here: 
> https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/56532
> 
> The package is currently useful to me, I use it on a number of 
> systems. So, I felt it was appropriate to share it with others who 
> might find it useful too if they want mailcap without nginx mime 
> files cluttering their system.

Thank you for pointing out that context, because I actually do remember
that bug report, now, but I did not remember it either when reading the
initial deletion request or when you replied asking for the package to
be reinstated.

In the context of that bug report, I can actually understand the
motivation for this package, and it is a lot more justifiable than the
obvious explanation.

I'm still not sure why you never said so in the first place, mind you ;)
and I'm not sure what the right answer to this should be, but this is
worlds better than the previous state of affairs where I was positive
the answer was "delete the package".

However, the current state of affairs is still needlessly confusing: the
pkgname does not distinguish what is different between this and the
mailcap package, and I would suggest that your intent is more along the
lines of a package like "mime-types-minimal", and/or leaving a comment
on the package details explaining what the utility of this is above and
beyond the mailcap package.

>> I wasn’t saying you should tell people how to ignore the deletion
>> request, I was simply saying that it was not clear I should “Reply
>> All” in order to contest the deletion. On the deletion request, I
>> think this should be clear, and it should also be clear what the
>> process is to actually contest the deletion request. Simply
>> replying to the private email is obvously not enough, and from what
>> you said, some basic information should be presented, like why the
>> package is useful, why it is broken, how/when it will be fixed,
>> etc.

This... sounds a lot less weird than what I initially assumed you meant,
but then, "So, you don’t need to do anything. However, I would suggest
you add a small note in the deletion request what you should do." did
very much sound like you were still talking about getting packages
restored...

Anyway, it's not necessary to send private or public email, you can
simply leave a comment on the package details instead. This method does
not even require subscribing to the mailing list.

I feel like it should be common sense that in order to contest a
deletion request, you must do so in a manner where anyone reading the
deletion request can see.

-- 
Eli Schwartz
Bug Wrangler and Trusted User

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-requests/attachments/20181231/5a1129e7/attachment.asc>