I don't believe `wechat-bin` is a duplicate package. The `wechat` package depends on another package called `portable`, maintained by the same maintainer, to create a sandbox environment. Beyond that, the `wechat` package includes a significant number of unnecessary scripts and files added solely to support the sandbox setup. Therefore, I believe the package name `wechat` is misleading and should instead be called `wechat-portable`. Even though it prompts users at launch to choose whether to enable the sandbox, that doesn't change the fact that it essentially functions as `wechat-portable`.
On the other hand, `wechat-bin` is a package that is almost entirely a repackaging of the official WeChat `.deb` package. If the current `wechat` package hadn’t occupied the name `wechat`, then `wechat-bin` would naturally take that name instead. Given the differences in their packaging approaches, I do not see them as duplicate packages. One particularly problematic aspect of the `wechat` maintainer’s actions is that he preemptively reserved the `wechat` package name back when Tencent had not yet released an official Linux version of WeChat. He created a placeholder package with no real content, effectively blocking others from packaging WeChat. Their intent seems clear: to prevent others from uploading WeChat packages and to position themselves to demand a merge whenever a package doesn't align with his personal preferences. This behavior might stem from frustration with previous merge requests (e.g., [PRQ#57379], [PRQ#57762], [PRQ#57991], [PRQ#65631]) where AUR moderators rejected his requests, citing the uniqueness and coexistence of each package. In response, the maintainer criticized AUR moderation on his personal blog, criticizing they as "not good" [AUR moderation is not good](https://blog.kimiblock.top/2024/08/23/aur-moderation/). Shortly after, he uploaded a placeholder package to claim the `wechat` name. Despite the maintainer's early occupancy of the `wechat` name and the significant traffic he draw as a result, most users continue to vote for `wechat-bin`. This is because `wechat-bin` users overwhelmingly prefer the clean, official experience without the unnecessary additions from the wechat package. They reject being forced to use extra something they don’t want. Finally, even if I were to agree to a merge, it’s highly likely that another user would simply re-upload a new `wechat-bin` package. This is evident from the feedback on comment of `wechat-bin`, as its users value freedom and choice. These are, after all, the hallmarks of true Linux users. ________________________________ 发件人: [email protected] <[email protected]> 发送时间: 2024年12月6日 7:51 收件人: [email protected] <[email protected]> 抄送: [email protected] <[email protected]> 主题: [PRQ#67114] Merge Request for wechat-bin Kimiblock [1] filed a request to merge wechat-bin [2] into wechat [3]: This package contains the exact same content from WeChat's official Linux desktop app. And aur/wechat (now extracted portable sandbox) has already added a question dialog for users to choose whether or not to enable the sandbox. So according the the AUR submission guidelines, this package (along with others providing the official WeChat app) should not be submitted in the first place. I'll set maintainer(s) of wechat-bin to be aur/wechat's co- maintainers, if they are willing to do so. [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/Kimiblock/ [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/wechat-bin/ [3] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/wechat/
