On 2/9/19 2:35 PM, Xyne wrote:
>> When the package furthermore has no other defined purpose - as Morten
>> pointed out, this is clearly something overly specialized - *and* the
>> deletion was handled according to procedure (with a deletion request,
>> see below), then I don't see the issue.
>
>
alad via aur-general wrote:
>When I look at the removed package however, I see a bash script which
>takes up all available resources to display an animation which may
>induce severe health issues to some users, i.e. induce epileptic attacks.
I somehow doubt that epilepsy was at any point a
Maksim Fomin via aur-general wrote:
>For me, your program is not far from discovering bash programming.
>The fact that it has github page and README.md tells nothing. Having those
>does not mean such software can be uploaded to AUR.
>
>Try to look objectively. You have discussed this issue in
Am 09.02.2019 um 14:49 schrieb Xyne:
> On 2019-02-09 14:36 +0100
> alad via aur-general wrote:
>
>> The "original" lsf looks like a joke/troll package to me, rather than
>> "trivial". I'd have deleted it even without community duplicate.
>>
>> Alad
> To me it just looks like the package of
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Saturday, February 9, 2019 1:49 PM, Xyne wrote:
> On 2019-02-09 14:36 +0100
> alad via aur-general wrote:
>
> > The "original" lsf looks like a joke/troll package to me, rather than
> > "trivial". I'd have deleted it even without community duplicate.
> > Alad
On Sat, Feb 09, 2019 at 02:49:33PM +0100, Xyne wrote:
> The discussion is important because we need to have a general consensus on
> deletion criteria. Rogue TUs can't be allowed to roam the AUR deleting
> whatever
> they personally don't find useful on a given day.
`Make sure the package you
On 2019-02-09 14:49, Xyne wrote:
On 2019-02-09 14:36 +0100
alad via aur-general wrote:
The "original" lsf looks like a joke/troll package to me, rather than
"trivial". I'd have deleted it even without community duplicate.
Alad
To me it just looks like the package of someone discovering bash
On 2019-02-09 14:36 +0100
alad via aur-general wrote:
>The "original" lsf looks like a joke/troll package to me, rather than
>"trivial". I'd have deleted it even without community duplicate.
>
>Alad
To me it just looks like the package of someone discovering bash programming
with ANSI escape
Am 09.02.2019 um 14:34 schrieb Xyne:
> Hi everyone,
>
> This is in regard to this thread on the forum:
> https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=244051
>
> The packaged contained this project:
> https://github.com/Aniket-Pradhan/lsd
>
> To summarize the thread, an AUR package that had existed
Hi everyone,
This is in regard to this thread on the forum:
https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=244051
The packaged contained this project:
https://github.com/Aniket-Pradhan/lsd
To summarize the thread, an AUR package that had existed for a while was
deleted when an unrelated package of
Am 09.02.2019 um 14:26 schrieb Daniel Mirkin via aur-general:
> To Trust Users:
>
> Today I've received SPAM, delivered from Thanos1234 account, in the
> comments area of my USBPICPROG package in AUR.
>
> I saw that SPAM comments was delivered to at least three other AUR pages
> from the same
11 matches
Mail list logo
