Not misinformation. Packages that are not intended to be drop-in replacements for the official packages should not have provides against those packages. Comments from 2024-04-28 at [a] and [b] describe the problem. One is written by a PM. Also, a different PM instructed me to remove versioned provides (from an unrelated package) because it was or could interfere with use of the official packages. I have seen similar comments, some written by other PMs, with similar instructions at other packages.
[a]: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/python310#comment-969868 [b]: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/python310#comment-969872 On Mon, Jan 20, 2025 at 10:01 AM <[email protected]> wrote: > > Request #68738 has been Rejected by bertptrs [1]: > > The package is fine. The Python dependency listed should be assumed to > be the current version in [core]. I left a comment with a suggestion > on how to better communicate the dependency on 3.13, but even without > that fix, there is no reason to delete this package. > > Xiota, please don't spread misinformation: it is fine and even > desirable for older packages to provide=python, though they ideally > should label the version they provide. > > [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/bertptrs/
