[aur-requests] [PRQ#35787] Merge Request for lbry-app-bin

[Tom]

On 23 juni 2022 20:29:31 CEST Ruben Kelevra wrote:
> Hey Tom,
> 
> that's not an opinion. The package should be named as the
> software it represents.
> 
> Why shouldn't it be up for me to request a deletion/merge if
> there's an obvious issue with the package? That's what open
> source is about: Work together to improve things. 

I agree on the working together.
You are not doing that by attempting to go over the heads of the 
years-long-maintainers. Do you see that this is forcing the issue 
without cooperation?
It makes me feel attacked.

> The
> maintainer of the package has already contacted me after the
> deletion request and argued that the package is named *-app
> because it's an application. This doesn't make any sense. You
> don't create "chrome-app" or "kontakt-app" packages. You could
> have just created the destination package lbry-desktop-bin
> yourself, as you got the decision of Morganamilo to have a
> merge request for this as well. You decided against that.
> 
> I offered you to disown the package, as I really don't want to
> maintain yet another package if there's is/are maintainer(s)
> available – I just don't want to add confusion for no reason:
> There's a "lbry-desktop-git" and a "lbry-desktop" package
> available which offer the same software as your "lbry-app-bin"
> – which is straight out confusing.
> 
> And the further discussion here is just leading nowhere. Your
> package is named wrong. 

I welcome your input, and I regret your refusal to work together 
with the maintainers on this.

It is a rather hard statement to say something is wrong. There 
are good reasons for the name it is today, I have not seen any 
arguments why the current name is "wrong".
The upstream release is called simply 'lbry', the installed 
executable is too. And this name is in the package. What is wrong 
with that?

Could something be a better choice? Possibly. But do we really 
want to lose all the current 'customers' with that? No, that 
doesn't seem to be a good balance. The name has been in use for 5 
years, afterall.

But you are free to make your argument in the proper forum.
Which is not a private email initiated by the people who's 
package you want to rename.

Have a nice day!

> I will wait for the merge (when the
> TUs decide to do this) and if you like I can disown the
> package or I'll do the maintaining.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Ruben
> 
> On Thu, 23 Jun 2022 at 18:40, Tom <tom at flowee.org> wrote:
> > On donderdag 23 juni 2022 18:21:54 CEST Ruben Kelevra wrote:
> > > I requested the deletion, because the name is wrong.
> > 
> > This is your opinion.
> > 
> > It is not up to you to request deletion of a package you
> > don't
> > own. Or a merge into your own package which essentially moves
> > ownership to you.
> > 
> > Please work with the current maintainers instead of trying to
> > go over the maintainer's heads using the arch requests.
> > 
> > I would like to request you cancel your request, if the
> > website gives you that option.