On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 9:51 AM, Keshav P R <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 13:44, Massimiliano Torromeo > <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 7:26 AM, Keshav P R <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 20:34, Keshav P R <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>> On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 19:50, Keshav P R <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>>> Hi, >>>>> Please delete elilo-git >>>>> https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=45565 . It uses my own git >>>>> mirror of upstram cvs repo as source (no elilo-cvs package). I have >>>>> created elilo-x86_64 https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=56750 >>>>> to replace it, which uses upstream release tarballs. Thanks in >>>>> advance. >>>>> >>>>> Regards. >>>>> >>>>> Keshav >>>> >>>> Also delete grub-legacy-efi-fedora >>>> https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=47979 , replaced by >>>> https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=56751 . >>>> >>>> - Keshav >>> >>> bump^2 >> >> The reason nobody is willing to do this is probably because your >> package is obviously badly named (elilo-x86_64). There is no reason to >> name the package so. If it is x86_64 only, just put only x86_64 in >> arch=() instead of any, and just name the package "elilo". >> > > Have you ever tried uefi booting? Or tried to find out why there are > two grub2-efi packages in extra repo. I think > https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Unified_Extensible_Firmware_Interface#Detecting_UEFI_Firmware_Arch > should answer your question (or > https://projects.archlinux.org/svntogit/packages.git/tree/grub2-efi-x86_64/trunk/PKGBUILD). > > That x86_64 denoted UEFI ARCH which is independent of Kernel ARCH. > Same reason for grub-legacy-efi-fedora.
No, I did not and that's the reason I didn't feel like I was the best person to handle this, because I suspected I missed something on the subject. Also this are only my reasons, I only guessed that was the problem for the other TUs too. >> If instead x86_64 is a build-only requirement, you should still name >> the package as just "elilo" and leave the compile time check that you >> did already put in place. >> >> Either way I don't see a valid reason to name it elilo-x86_64, but if >> you think we missed something, please clarify. >> >> Thanks. > > If you wanted clarification you could have asked instead of waiting > for me to bump this. I can't read your mind to understand why this was > IGNORED. Asking for clarification is ok but ignoring the mail totally > is not. It shouldn't take you 3 days + bump to reply to my mail. > That's a basic courtesy any one would expect. Some reply to the mail > should have been given, especially when you guys have replied to other > such removal requests. I can only speak for myself, (as I did before) but sometimes I do not reply because I feel like I am not the best person that should handle a problem and I just wait for someone else to take on it. The 3 days + bumps were the signal for me that apparently nobody else wanted to do this, so I stepped up. Ignoring your emails was unintended. Anyway, the packages have been deleted now. Have a nice day.
