[aur-requests] [PRQ#22879] Deletion Request for pipewire-nightly

Haochen Tong arch at hexchain.org
Thu Dec 31 14:05:12 UTC 2020

On Thu, 2020-12-31 at 07:22 -0500, Eli Schwartz wrote:
> On 12/31/20 4:56 AM, Haochen Tong wrote:
> > On Wed, 2020-12-30 at 20:41 +0000, notify at aur.archlinux.org wrote:
> > > eschwartz [1] filed a deletion request for pipewire-nightly [2]:
> > > 
> > > duplicate of pipewire-git, renamed to "nightly" even though it is
> > > not
> > > in fact based on "nightly" snapshots but "minutely" or even
> > > "secondly"
> > > git HEAD.
> > > 
> > > Purpose seems to be to build pipewire-git with different
> > > options...
> > > 
> > 
> > Hi Eli,
> > 
> > You are not wrong. It is basically -git, but with the same options
> > as
> > the [community]/pipewire package. The reason for the name "-
> > nightly" is
> > really just 1) -git is already taken, and 2) most AUR helpers
> > consider
> > "-nightly" as VCS packages.
> > 
> > As for "why do we need another one apart from -git", it is because
> > the
> > maintainer of -git seems to have some strong opinion on gstreamer
> > and
> > decide to exclude the gst plugin from the package, which I believe
> > gnome-shell depends on. Due to this discrepancy with the official
> > package and the maintainer refusing to do anything, people have
> > sent
> > multiple requests in the past trying to "free" -git, but they were
> > all
> > rejected.
> > 
> > I don't want to argue whether it is preferred/allowed for him to do
> > so
> > (especially with such a good package name :-), so I decided to
> > create
> > this new package for brave people to test this new piece of
> > software
> > without hassle. It tries to follow the official one closely, with
> > occasionally modifications when upstream introduces changes that
> > requires packaging attention.
> > 
> > I hope you can reconsider and probably reverse this decision.
> You will NOT be permitted to use the name "pipewire-nightly" for this
> purpose.

... even if I manage to update this package strictly once every day? :-

> The sole reason for my deletion request is precisely, as the deletion
> request stated, the fact that it reuses "-nightly" (something that 
> refers to the release cadence, like -git does), when the difference
> is 
> not in fact due to the release cadence.
> Think about this:
> if a user searches the AUR and sees:
>   - pipewire-git
>   - pipewire-nightly
> which one do they choose to install... AND WHY?

I agree -nightly might not be the best choice, but that's a compromise,
since 1) -git is already taken but it comes with suprise, and 2) it
uses the same option as the official pipewire package so I don't think
I should use anything like pipewire-official-git, and 3) most AUR
helpers consider -nightly packages to be VCS ones and updates them

> (Keep in mind not only does pipewire-nightly not mention gstreamer in
> the pkgname, it also didn't mention it in the pkgdesc. The 
> discoverability level is/was 0%.)

Because I don't think I need to do that. Reason below.

> I have no problems with you re-uploading the exact same package, but 
> naming it "pipewire-gstreamer-git" for example. Because then it is 
> obvious from the pkgname what it does!!
> It is *okay* for users to upload variant packages that build the same
> software but with different options from the default version of the 
> package. They just need to be named sensibly.

It isn't specifically about enabling gstreamer, it's the same PipeWire
people would expect from [community]/pipewire but more recent. By this
logic I would argue that the current pipewire-git should be renamed to
pipewire-gstfree-git because it didn't mention its lack of gstreamer
support, and people looking to try out the latest PipeWire aren't
expecting something incomplete which may silently break their system.

> ...
> I already pointed this out to you last night on IRC, after you asked
> me 
> about the deletion:
> 05:58 PM <elibrokeit> hexchain: have you considered that it's
> entirely 
> not ok to have two packages, one named "pipewire-git" and one named 
> "pipewire-nightly", which build the exact same version of the code
> and 
> differ only in whether or not they have a gstreamer subpackage? 
> Regardless, there has been discussion in #archlinux-aur about this.
> My 
> advice was to create a "gst-plugin-pipewire-git" PKGBUILD that 
> configures pipewire, then runs `ninja
> 05:58 PM <elibrokeit> libgstpipewire.so` to build the one file, then 
> installs it manually. It would depend on pipewire-git=$pkgver to
> ensure 
> the same commit is used for pipewire and for the gst plugin, and you 
> could install the disputed pipewire-git package + the new package.
> 05:59 PM <elibrokeit> And again, the only problem I have here is your
> terrible pkgname habit making it impossible for aur users to know
> which 
> package to install

Thanks for the reminder, I didn't catch this for some reason. However
in my opinion this is too much hassle for both maintainer and users. I
still think the best thing for users would be to install pipewire-
whatever and still expect a fully working system.

Best regards,

More information about the aur-requests mailing list