Hi Johannes, Thank you for your reply.
I recognized the possibility that this package could have been used with linopen. But I've observed that apart from that 1 user from 2021, nobody complained since that time that they need xdg-utils-no-open packaging to be corrected. Also, linopen is badly packaged, the source is not linked to external source, and after I found the external GitHub source, realized that linopen's 'open' script is 8 years old, from 2015, and unmaintained. Also AUR/linopen erroneously declares that it provides and conflicts with xdg-utils; both are incorrect. But the last comment on linopen's package was 3 years ago, apart from my comment about the source linking problem a year ago. For which I got no answer. 1 year should have been more than enough for *any* user to chime in, that they want the package fixed / updated (as it's also flagged OOD since that time). But no one responded. I do not see any point in keeping such abandoned packages on AUR, so after 1+ year of total silence, I've submitted a deletion request for linopen as well. (PRQ#42893). Consequently, I also do not see a pont in keeping this package; hence my current deletion request. On the other hand, if you say you really want to keep and use xdg-util-no-open, please state as such. In that case, I will revoke my deletion request for this package and for linopen. But that also entails that you take it upon yourself to make linopen a mandatory dependency of xdg-util-no-open, and keep the latter up-to-date like repo xdg-utils. And on top of that, you'll need to adopt linopen and fix its wrongly declared metadata, and use the externally hosted source (link in comment of linopen AUR page). If I were you, I think I would not go for keeping and maintaining these old solutions for a problem that's already been solved adequately by upstream xdg-utils. (It has a GitLab server: issues and patches are welcome.) I am awaiting your decision, and will act accordingly to accommodate your intentions. :) Cheers, Marcell (MarsSeed) On 27 June 2023 14:05:47 GMT+02:00, Johannes Frankenau <[email protected]> wrote: >Hi Marcell, > >actually, I just remembered why the original maintainer didn't add those >attributes. Because xdg-utils-no-open is meant to be used with packages like >linopen, mimi, busking, or mimejs it should not provide or conflict with >xdg-utils, because those packages already provide xdg-utils (to be correct >only the xdg-open binary without the additional utilities). So, I believe I >should revert my last commit here. That was the reason why I didn’t add >provides and conflicts fields in response to the request from 2022. > >Johannes > >On 27 Jun 2023, at 13:49, Marcell Meszaros wrote: >> After lingering in abandonment for the last 5 years, now after my deletion >> request, maintainer @frankenau added provides and conflicts fields requested >> by a user in 2021. >> >> But I still see no point in keeping this package. >> >> There is no maintained alternative of xdg-open on AUR, and that script is >> still needed by many applications. >> >> So this package will just break lots of things. >> >> Also it is still outdated compared to repo version of xdg-utils. >> >> On 27 June 2023 12:23:20 GMT+02:00, [email protected] wrote: >>> MarsSeed [1] filed a deletion request for xdg-utils-no-open [2]: >>> >>> Abandoned mod of repo's xdg-utils. >>> Last updated in 2018. >>> >>> Badly packaged: no provides or conflicts. >>> Cannot be installed on most systems because of this. >>> >>> There is only one comment: a user mentions this same problem in >>> 2022-11. They got no reply from maintainer. >>> >>> Better to delete this defunct package. >>> >>> [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/MarsSeed/ >>> [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/xdg-utils-no-open/
