@yochananmarqos, this deletion request is based on mistaken assumptions. TLDR: It is not hard to create a modified package based on xdg-utils source by deleting one script, 'xdg-open', and making the package depend on another package that either has an alternative implementation of that script with the same name, or a symlink with the same name pointing to another shell script that is interface-compatible with the original 'xdg-open'.
For more details, please kindly read the discussion that took place on 2023-06-27 on the following page: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/xdg-utils-no-open (archived: https://archive.ph/zk7uR) Ref also owner's merge request [PRQ#43206] from xdg-utils-no-open to xdg-utils-custom-open. Please kindly revoke this ill-conceived deletion request and let @jfrankenau implement a viable, Arch-repo-compatible drop-in customization solution for xdg-utils that is mostly similar to what Arch's 'xdg-desktop-portal' package already utilizes: https://archlinux.org/packages/extra/x86_64/xdg-desktop-portal/ Thank you for your kind cooperation. :) Marcell (MarsSeed) On 29 June 2023 21:23:34 GMT+02:00, [email protected] wrote: >yochananmarqos [1] filed a deletion request for xdg-utils-custom-open >[2]: > >Duplicate of xdg-utils. Custom? How? Open? As opposed to closed? >There's also a non-existent dependency on xdg-open-impl--whatever that >is. > >"The submitted PKGBUILDs must not build applications already in any of >the official binary repositories under any circumstances. Check the >official package database for the package. If any version of it >exists, do not submit the package. If the official package is out-of- >date, flag it as such. If the official package is broken or is lacking >a feature, then please file a bug report." > >-- >https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/AUR_submission_guidelines#Rules_of_submission > > > >[1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/yochananmarqos/ >[2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/xdg-utils-custom-open/
