On 12/3/19 2:27 PM, Jonathon Fernyhough wrote: > On 03/12/2019 18:26, [email protected] wrote: >> rober_k [1] filed a deletion request for gtk3-classic [2]: >> >> this is an identical package as gtk3-mushrooms . >> It pulls from the same repo, only is newer. >> Proper way would be to mark gtk3-mushrooms out-of-date, not just >> upload a different package with same content ;) >> >> [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/rober_k/ >> [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/gtk3-classic/ >> > > It's not a simply a more up-to-date package. The source repo is the same > but gtk3-classic is essentially a forked gtk3-mushrooms which adds > experimental/developmental (?) aspects to the PKGBUILD which the > original does not (e.g. use of meson and quilt, see e.g. [1]).
"Use quilt and meson" is not a valid reason to upload a new PKGBUILD. The resulting package does not care what technology you use for applying patches, and it *should* not care whether you use autotools or meson to generate a series of compilation commands. Is there something that the resulting .pkg.tar.xz does, which is different from "gtk3-mushrooms"? If it is just about the lib32-* variant, you can just upload a lib32-gtk3-mushrooms package inspired by https://git.archlinux.org/svntogit/community.git/tree/trunk/PKGBUILD?h=packages/lib32-gtk3 > Also, technically the gtk3-mushrooms package is not out-of-date as the > upstream is still at 3.24.11. > > If all of this is potentially too confusing let me update the PKGBUILD > to use a different source rather than having the package deleted. I don't think changing the url= field makes a difference, if that is what you mean. > [1] https://github.com/krumelmonster/gtk3-mushrooms/pull/26 > -- Eli Schwartz Bug Wrangler and Trusted User
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
