On Mon, 20 Nov 2017 19:03:43 +0100 Morten Linderud wrote: > On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 06:34:11PM +0100, Štěpán Němec wrote:
[...] >> 1. >> What is the best way to find rationale about package removal or old >> package logs in general? E.g. pacolog doesn't work on st any more (I >> guess the logs are removed together with the package?) and even looking >> for the message linked above felt like there should be a better way. > > Looked at the pacolog source, it acts on the branch from the git.archlinux.org > website, this is essentially useless when the package is removed from the > repos > as the website goes away with it. You could search the git logs on the > git.archlinux.org page, but thats tedious. I don't know of any better way > sadly. > >> 2. >> If the commit message above is the only resource to be had, is there >> some kind of best practices concerning similar commit messages? I would >> have appreciated at least a short rationale for the removal being >> included. > > I honestly don't know if there is any policy regarding this, I shared the mail > to the other TUs and I'll see what they think. However! Yes, I agree. The > commit > message is horrendous and I'll do better in the future! > >> 3. >> What was the rationale in this particular case? The st-git¹ AUR package >> seems quite popular, so I was surprised to see its non-vcs version >> removed from community (I would expect the opposite to happen for >> popular packages). >> >> ¹ https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/st-git/ > > st is suppose to be compiled with your own config.h along with it. It hasn't > really had any release and after some discussion among other TUs, we decided > to > drop both st and dwm for this reason. After some complaints on reddit[1] I > uploaded the old PKGBUILDs to AUR for the sake of being refferences. > > [1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/archlinux/comments/7e52e4/st_package_removed/ > > I hope this answers your questions! Thank you very much for the information! (Note to self: have to search Reddit as well next time; Google seems not to have indexed the discussion there yet, although interestingly DuckDuckGo does, now I checked...) (Readding arch-general, for some reason the headers of my original message seem not to have made it through unmangled.) -- Štěpán
