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

[Eli Schwartz]

On 1/1/21 8:05 AM, Haochen Tong wrote:
> I never denied that -nightly was a bad choice, but pipewire-gstreamer-
> git doesn't look good either. It sounds like gstreamer is specifically
> enabled (in contrast to the official package) for some reason.

It sounds *to me* like gstreamer is specifically enabled (in contrast to 
"pipewire-git") for some reason.

i.e. the point of contrast is pipewire-git, not pipewire, due to 
pipewire-gstreamer-git minus the substring "-gstreamer" being the 
former, not the latter.

> Fine, I now understand that "first come first use" always have higher
> priority. I am willing to accept this, but is it written somewhere? If
> not, I hope you can make it clear in the future.

Given a dispute where both sides have subjective arguments, which other 
tiebreaker do you propose?

> I admit it isn't obvious from just the package name, but I am curious,
> what kind of privileged information do you need to acquire when you can
> just look at the PKGBUILD to find the difference?

The privileged information is someone telling me directly, and the whole 
point of my statement was that I'm claiming you can't "just look" 
because it's too easy to *over*look.

>> Your basic approach here seems to be "I think the other maintainer
>> sucks
>> at maintaining, therefore I can do whatever I feel like and if anyone
>> is
>> confused, it's the other maintainer's fault for sucking at being a
>> maintainer".
>>
> 
> That was never the intention. I am simply not satisfied with any
> possible workarounds we have for now, that's why I am trying to discuss
> for a better solution. If that looks bad to you then I feel sorry.
> 
>> The only thing you're convincing me of, here, is that maybe I
>> shouldn't
>> trust you in the future, period. Is your insistence that rules don't
>> apply to you, indicative of some deep-seated desire to experience an
>> account suspension? (Please say "no"... and please make your actions
>> say
>> "no" too...)
> 
> Well, now you would like to assume that I intend to be malicious and
> you are prepared to apply restrictive measure, just because I have some
> opinions you don't agree with in some email exchanges? Or is my
> uploading of pipewire-nightly such an unforgivable violation of some
> rule that must be corrected with an account ban?
> 
> To save both of us some trouble I will now step out of this as you
> wish.

Hmm, well, it looked to me like post hoc rationalization of your 
original upload with a refusal to acknowledge it as problematic. 
Uploading the package may have been wrong, but mistakes can be pardoned 
as long as they're not repeated.

I don't plan on banning you at all!

I'm merely decidedly unsure, from your replies, whether you acknowledge 
it as, indeed, being a problem. Therefore I was concerned that in the 
future, if you ever get into a debate with a maintainer over another 
package about the right options to use, you might do the same "use a 
different VCS/devel suffix to re-upload the package in order to 
circumvent the upload restrictions, without properly namespacing it 
using a distinctive keyword" thing.

-- 
Eli Schwartz
Bug Wrangler and Trusted User

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: OpenPGP_signature
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-requests/attachments/20210101/5cb3357b/attachment.sig>