> Earler, owner updated it to 1.0.0 without adjusting the dependencies
> accordingly.

Sorry, this is my mistake and not an attempt to reject a previous deletion 
request.

> I don't think it is useful to keep this on AUR.

I agree with you. Haven't seen the latest version from extra. Recently I tried 
to
build cherrytree-bin, but I could not create the libcmt ABI, it was always 
ahead of
the Debian version, so support does not make sense.

Sent with Proton Mail secure email.

------- Original Message -------
On Sunday, September 17th, 2023 at 3:30 PM, [email protected] 
<[email protected]> wrote:


> MarsSeed [1] filed a deletion request for cherrytree-bin [2]:
> 
> This is a badly maintained package.
> 
> Earler, owner updated it to 1.0.0 without adjusting the dependencies
> accordingly.
> 
> I left a detailed feedback in a comment, listing all the needed
> changes, backing it up with the output of a namcap analysis.
> 
> Then, instead of fixing the dependencies, owner just downgraded the
> package to 0.99.37 without bumping the epoch.
> 
> In addition, owner chose to make the PKGBUILD extract the tarball
> directly into the $pkgdir, keeping the upstream files' ownership and
> access attributes.
> 
> I don't think it is useful to keep this on AUR.
> Arch maintainers competently take care of the package for this in
> extra repo, which is on the latest upstream version (not even 1.0.0
> but 1.0.1 as of now, released on August 25th, 2023). [a]
> 
> [a]: https://archlinux.org/packages/?q=cherrytree
> 
> [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/MarsSeed/
> [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/cherrytree-bin/

Reply via email to