On Fri, 22 Apr 2022 08:31:27 -0700 Brett Cornwall <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 2022-04-22 09:58, Doug Newgard via aur-general wrote: > >Recently vi-vim-symlink and neovim-symlinks were deleted from the AUR. These > >are used by a lot of people to set up their systems, and a lot of people > >want to know why [1]. They do not violate any AUR rules and have been > >available in the AUR for a very long time, well over 6 years for > >neovim-symlinks (about the time neovim became a thing) and over a decade for > >vi-vim-symlink, but I can't date that one as it predates the current AUR > >system by a long ways. > > > >The reason given for this was: > >> This is more appropriately managed via the user shell's > >> PATH/configuration. > >This is completely bogus. First off, PATH has nothing to do with anything > >here. Second, the shell's configuration doesn't work. Making aliases doesn't > >work when other programs call vi or vim. It doesn't even work for something > >like `sudo vim`. This is not a substitute in any way. > > > >Just because one TU doesn't find it personally useful or doesn't understand > >why someone would use a package doesn't mean it shouldn't exist. This is a > >similar situation to the -bin package issue, except there's not even a rule > >to misinterpret on this one. If you don't want to use a package, don't, but > >please don't force your views on everyone. > > Hi, Doug! > > Firstly, please consider that I was not the one to have accepted the > request I made, so at least *two* TUs didn't find it useful ;). > > Secondly, please remember that TUs exist to actually "force" our views > onto everyone via quality control. And where did you come up with this? Rules violations, sure, but forcing your personal preferences via "quality control", being completely subjective. > These packages fall into personal > configuration territory with a rather heavy-handed approach. So you're saying this falls under: https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/AUR_submission_guidelines#Rules_of_submission > Make sure the package you want to upload is useful. Will anyone else want to > use this package? Is it extremely specialized? If more than a few people would > find this package useful, it is appropriate for submission. The AUR and > official repositories are intended for packages which install generally > software and software-related content, including one or more of the following: > executable(s); configuration file(s); online or offline documentation for > specific software or the Arch Linux distribution as a whole; media intended to > be used directly by software." Note that this specifically says that configurations *are* allowed, as long as they are useful to others. The popularity that you dismiss prove that these packages qualify. As such, I think I'll be re-uploading unless you can show me where this violates the rules.
