On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 10:27 PM, merp boop <[email protected]> wrote: > Hey all, > > Before I sound like anything I'm not! > > - I don't really care about politics > - I hate drama > - I try my best to conform to standards in contributed work > - I appreciate everyone that contributes to Arch > - I understand that one can become emotionally invested in their efforts > > That being said, another user created a package in the AUR called > 'blink', which is basically a copy of my package, 'blink-darcs'. This > wouldn't cause any issues if 'blink' built from an archive of sources > and didn't use darcs to pull the sources, but that's not the case. > What's your opinion on this? How should this be handled? > > -Max >
IMO one of the packages can be removed. I guess yours could be updated using the current python2 which the blink package of speps is based on. On the other hand, upstream is not offering its software through a channel different from darcs, which leads me to favoring a package name without a postfix. please come to an agreement with speps, and/or let your package be removed to blink-python26... cheers! mar77i
