My original request: PRQ#46854. Just for the record, I am not going behind anyone's backs. When I submit a request, it is just a proposal, and a public one, not a verdict, and not a secret. I am not a TU, only a fellow user, so there is no decision made at this point. And the package maintainers receive my submitted message, whether they are subscribed to the aur-requests mailing list or not, and they have also ample time to reply to it. Trusted Users evaluate the requests several weeks to 1-2 months later, and they take maintainers' feedback into account.
And I don't think it is so outrageous to submit a request for a 9-year-old release which uses deprecated and broken Python2 based dependencies, when upstream maintains their tool in an active git repository which continually receives commits, and for which there is already an AUR package from same AUR owner, which I linked to in a comment I left on the old package's page. I think it is not reflecting very well on the maintainer to let a package rot for such a long time and not inform users with at least a suggestion to not use the stable package abandoned by upstream, and at least recommending them to use the always fresh git package. On 31 August 2023 09:01:32 GMT+02:00, [email protected] wrote: >Gilrain [1] filed a deletion request for pology [2]: > >Though I don't support MarsSeed cavalier method by going behind >maintainers backs, I agree that this package should be deleted based >on upstream lack of "stable" releases in a decade. > >[1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/Gilrain/ >[2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/pology/
