On 8/27/24 12:44 AM, Catppuccin Org wrote:
Hi Robin,
Hi Goudham,
Thank you for reaching out and my sincere apologies for how long it's taken for me to respond.
No worries, thanks for answering :)
I'm Goudham, one of the core maintainers of Catppuccin and the person behind raising most of the deletion requests. With regards to the deletion requests, I submitted them with some core misconceptions on how the process works: 1. I thought the deletion requests would be handled by the package maintainer themselves, without intervention from the AUR package maintainers.
Requests are handled by AUR Staff (currently being Arch Linux Package Maintainers and Developers). The maintainer of the AUR package itself cannot act on the deletion request (unless he/she is also an Arch Package Maintainer/Developer).
2. I did not think packages on the AUR could be renamed.
An AUR package can't exactly be renamed directly. The process is to create a new package with the correct name, and then fill out a deletion request (or a merge request if needed) on the "old" one. However, creating duplicate packages is forbidden, so the reason being a rename should be clearly stated in the associated deletion/merge request.
I apologise for raising these requests in an inappropriate way and thank you for reaching out to inform me.
No harm, thanks for your comprehension :)
There are 2 reasons behind these deletion requests: 1. Unification and automation of publishing to the AUR at an organisation level, meaning that packages do not require a maintainer in the traditional sense as they would be managed in our monorepo (https://github.com/catppuccin/aur-packages) 2. As you said, it is also about setting a more appropriate name (we would like all packages to be prefixed with the `catppuccin-` prefix.)
Alright, this is legitimate/understandable. Those reasons on their own are not the issue but rather the lack of clearness and overall coordination on that matter (hence why I reached out to you so we can discuss this).
With regards to renaming packages, do renamed packages break for users that have already installed the package locally? If they do break then I don't see much point in breaking installations just for an aesthetic name change.
No reason that a renaming breaks anything for users that have already installed the package, however they will need to (manually) switch to the new/renamed one (meaning uninstall the "old" one and install the "new" one basically). Users can be informed of that necessary switch by posting a comment on the "old" package before accepting the related deletion/merge request.
Going forward, we'll make sure to follow the process that you have described in the future!
Thanks a lot, feel free to reach out if needed (there's also [email protected] for general AUR questions)
Kind Regards, Goudham (Core Maintainer @ Catppuccin) https://github.com/sgoudham On 2024-06-09 13:28, Robin Candau wrote:Hello, We are contacting you about your recent AUR requests. While we understand your desire of unification for the Catppuccin packages in the AUR under a single ownership to "officially" maintain them (which is great), we would have preferred if those requests were done more appropriately. Indeed, uploading duplicate packages is against the rules of submission [1] and calling the "original" packages as such afterwards in your various requests isn't the proper way to go. If you, as the upstream, would like to take over, you should work with the existing maintainers and discuss (co-)maintainership. If it's also about setting a more appropriate name for the package (e.g. with the `catppuccin-` prefix), it should be clearly stated in the request as well which, on its own, is a more legitimate reason for deletion than stating that you would like the package you just created to become the new 'official' one for everyone. Basically, despite being upstream, we would have appreciated if those requests were done more collaboratively by contacting the maintainers of the "original" Catppuccin AUR packages and/or the AUR staff. Regardless, we once again understand your desire of unification for the Catppuccin packages and we are starting this discussion to decide how to go forward with this together. Please, give us a list of the packages you'd like to take over and specify if you want/need a rename for them. The current maintainers of the said packages should be contacted (either with a comment on the AUR Website or via email) to inform them of your intentions and, ideally, to get their approval. Thanks in advance! [1] https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Aur_requests#Rules_of_submission
-- Regards, Robin Candau / Antiz
OpenPGP_0xFDC3040B92ACA748.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
