AUR is like the wild west. Anyone can upload any packages even if it is
already exist.

On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 4:01 PM, Doug Newgard via aur-general <
aur-general@archlinux.org> wrote:

> On Wed, 04 Apr 2018 11:54:33 -0400
> Jordan Glover via aur-general <aur-general@archlinux.org> wrote:
>
> > On April 4, 2018 5:32 PM, Doug Newgard <scim...@archlinux.org> wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, 04 Apr 2018 11:23:34 -0400
> > >
> > > Jordan Glover via aur-general aur-general@archlinux.org wrote:
> > >
> > > > I'm sorry for the harsh words. If those requests were made AFTER
> update package
> > > >
> > > > in repo there won't be this conversation. I found situation where
> killing other people
> > > >
> > > > efforts to make things work, unacceptable without providing an
> alternative. Common
> > > >
> > > > sense should prevail the rules.
> > > >
> > > > Jordan
> > >
> > > Common sense tells me that if we allow people to upload newer packages
> just
> > >
> > > because the repo package is out of date, the AUR will be an even
> bigger mess
> > >
> > > than it already is. Everyone will be uploading packages a few hours
> after
> > >
> > > upstream releases updates, and of course they will just abandon them
> instead of
> > >
> > > having them deleted. The rules are in place for a reason.
> > >
> > > Doug
> >
> > Please be specific. We aren't talking about hours and bumping package
> version.
> > Common sense can be used to know when taking action will make people
> worse-off.
> > The package was managed so efficiently that even upstream benefited from
> it.
> > Archlinux maintainer dosen't have to do anything else than copy-paste
> existing
> > PKGBUILD. All work and testing is already done.
> >
> > ​Jordan
>
> I have been specific; the rules are in place for a reason, common sense
> says
> that they're necessary. This case is not special.
>
> C&Ping the entire PKGBUILD would be a huge mistake. Those sed commands
> are...marginal, to be generous.
>

Reply via email to