[aur-requests] [PRQ#10385] Request Rejected
Andrew G. Dunn
root at epiphyte.network
Tue Jan 23 16:23:14 UTC 2018
I understand the rejection, however I feel like it's for the wrong reasons.
This package, with its current name, should be packaging . There are
some complexities in doing this, like their way of doing migrations for the
database which is now build into . In its current form the package
should either be renamed to ghost-legacy (which is what it's actually
packaging), or deleted... because it's not actually a package of ghost.
Even still, there was some additions after 0.11.10 that wouldn't build with
the method that is currently in that repo. When asking upstream for
assistance I was told that support for ghost-legacy isn't available and all
should consider using their new tool ghost-cli.
So don't delete it, but rename it to ghost -legacy at-least so that people
don't search for "ghost" and think they are installing the non-legacy
version of this software.
My blog article is explaining how to _survive_ if you still want to stick
conceptually to how the original package was prepared for the AUR, which is
to use minimal dependencies (e.g. sqlite instead of a larger rdbms). I'm
not saying abandon ghost (obviously I'm still using it)... I'm just saying
to anyone who would read it that this package is no longer what you want to
I do hate npm, which influences my decision to disown... not to delete this
On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 11:15 AM, <notify at aur.archlinux.org> wrote:
> Request #10385 has been rejected by Eschwartz :
> I'm unconvinced by the comments section, which basically boils down to
> "oh, it uses nodejs now so clearly it is unsuitable for distro
> packaging and must be run in an nspawn container instead".
> We have many npm packages available in the repos and the AUR, clearly
> it works.
> Saying "I couldn't get over how installing "ghost-cli sqlite" via npm
> resulted in this: [...] added 627 packages" is disingenuous. Hate on
> npm all you want (I do), disown it because you aren't interested
> anymore (okay), but don't claim that the package should not be
> I'm also not quite sure how your blog is supposed to prove its
> unsuitability: https://storrgie.epiphyte.network/running-a-ghost-blog/
>  https://aur.archlinux.org/account/Eschwartz/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the aur-requests