[aur-requests] [PRQ#16875] Deletion Request for gtk3-classic

Robin Broda arch-ml at coderobe.net
Tue Dec 3 20:23:03 UTC 2019

On 12/3/19 9:13 PM, Eli Schwartz via aur-requests wrote:
> On 12/3/19 2:27 PM, Jonathon Fernyhough wrote:
>> On 03/12/2019 18:26, notify at aur.archlinux.org wrote:
>>> rober_k [1] filed a deletion request for gtk3-classic [2]:
>>> this is an identical package as gtk3-mushrooms .
>>> It pulls from the same repo, only is newer.
>>> Proper way would be to mark gtk3-mushrooms out-of-date, not just
>>> upload a different package with same content ;)
>>> [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/rober_k/
>>> [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/gtk3-classic/
>> It's not a simply a more up-to-date package. The source repo is the same
>> but gtk3-classic is essentially a forked gtk3-mushrooms which adds
>> experimental/developmental (?) aspects to the PKGBUILD which the
>> original does not (e.g. use of meson and quilt, see e.g. [1]).
> "Use quilt and meson" is not a valid reason to upload a new PKGBUILD.
> The resulting package does not care what technology you use for applying
> patches, and it *should* not care whether you use autotools or meson to
> generate a series of compilation commands.
> Is there something that the resulting .pkg.tar.xz does, which is
> different from "gtk3-mushrooms"?
> If it is just about the lib32-* variant, you can just upload a
> lib32-gtk3-mushrooms package inspired by
> https://git.archlinux.org/svntogit/community.git/tree/trunk/PKGBUILD?h=packages/lib32-gtk3
>> Also, technically the gtk3-mushrooms package is not out-of-date as the
>> upstream is still at 3.24.11.
>> If all of this is potentially too confusing let me update the PKGBUILD
>> to use a different source rather than having the package deleted.
> I don't think changing the url= field makes a difference, if that is
> what you mean.
>> [1] https://github.com/krumelmonster/gtk3-mushrooms/pull/26

As far as i could see by a quick inspection there does appear to be a difference in the patches applied as well, hence me rejecting the request.

If this is actually not the case, we might have to revisit my decision

Rob (coderobe)

O< ascii ribbon campaign - stop html mail - www.asciiribbon.org

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-requests/attachments/20191203/f7074a06/attachment.sig>

More information about the aur-requests mailing list