[aur-requests] [PRQ#26744] Deletion Request for octoprint-venv Accepted

[Caleb Maclennan]

On 2021-07-25 16:14, Jake via aur-requests wrote:
> Apparently a package that I regularly maintained for over 3 years and
> was the most popular Octoprint package is not even worth a comment
> before wiping out. I am extremely disappointed by that reaction!

We apologize for the somewhat unceremonious deletion. It was bad form 
but an honest mistake and we ask for your understanding moving forward. 
Some of us had seen the mailing list post bringing up the issues 
involved, but unfortunately not everyone had and it slipped by someone 
that handled the flag based on what (I assume) was an innocent 
assumption working through flags that no comments meant no objectons. 
Sending the message you did to the list was the right thing to do, the 
TU just missed it. I believe they have sent their apologies in another 
message as well and restored the repository on the AUR.

It is currently an orphan I would encourage you to adopt it as a 
starting point. Unfortunately it is not possible to restore comments or 
votes on the package, that data is permanently lost from out database. 
The best I see out there is a February snapshot on archive.org

https://web.archive.org/web/20210226194034/https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/octoprint-venv/

> Now only the 'octoprint' package is left [...] it also installs into a 
> venv!

This is unfortunate at best. I understand the objects to a venv package 
and would like to see a better solution, but in Arch's spirit of 
pragmatism if the only way to get it working at all is a venv we can 
probably accommodate that. In the mean time having a package that 
doesn't do what it says on the tin is even worse.

I suggest:

* Adopting and making sure the current -venv package works.
* Filing a merge request for the misnamed package into yours, so that at 
least the extant packages are properly identified. Also this will clear 
up the current duplicate situation. If you'd like after the merge 
inviting the maintainer(s) of the other package to co-maintain the -venv 
one might be a good gesture.
* That merge will also clear up the `octroprint` namespace to be used by 
a PKGBUILD that actually attempts to package things normally without 
venv. There is another mail on the list with some suggestions to that 
effect.

How does that sound?

I'm going to reject the request to delete the other package mostly to 
open up the way to a merge as suggested above.

Regards,
Caleb