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 < [email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, 04 Apr 2018 11:54:33 -0400 > Jordan Glover via aur-general <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On April 4, 2018 5:32 PM, Doug Newgard <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On Wed, 04 Apr 2018 11:23:34 -0400 > > > > > > Jordan Glover via aur-general [email protected] 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 because the repo package is out of date, the AUR will be an even 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. >
