Hi, Bump.
Maintainer has abandoned the package in the meantime, so please remove the package (link for convenience: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/manarchy/ ). Cheers, WorMzy On 26 December 2013 16:43, WorMzy Tykashi <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > I posted a message on the package, but the maintainer has not > responded yet. Their email is also not a recognised email address (I > have tried to contact them regarding my suggestions) > > I should have clarified in my last mail that this package is not my > own, but one that was brought to my attention on the Arch forums by a > new user seeking assistance with it. > > Since the owner is unreachable, would it be possible to remove the > package now (despite the two week rule). If preferred, I'll write a > PKGBUILD for the beta aircrack-ng package and update the theharvester > PKGBUILD so that the AUR status quo is maintained. I'll immediately > aurphan these packages so that someone else can maintain them, > however, as I have no interest in these tools.. > > Please let me know what your thoughts are, and how we should best proceed. > > Happy holidays, > > > WorMzy > > On 20 December 2013 13:35, Rashif Ray Rahman <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 20 December 2013 04:20, WorMzy Tykashi <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On 19 December 2013 18:44, Rashif Ray Rahman <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> Just provide for and conflict with the relevant packages and you don't >>>> give anyone any trouble. >>> >>> It's halfway there, it doesn't conflict with or provide theharvester >>> package, though that's something I was going to mention when I comment >>> about some changes they should make to the PKGBUILD (shouldn't be an >>> 'any' package, binaries shouldn't be in /usr/sbin, etc.). I just >>> wanted to check that such packages are allowed before prompting them >>> to fix it up. >>> >>>> But if this whole thing is a package of a real >>>> software collection (and not just a mash-up by a packager) then I see >>>> no problem. >>> >>> It's the latter, the package pulls from two different, unrelated >>> sources and merges them into one package. The only thing is, neither >>> source is otherwise available on the AUR or official repositories (as >>> far as I can tell). >> >> A better way to rephrase what I meant is this: if it's a useful bundle >> that people will use (if some people find the beta dep better), then >> there is no problem. The "Arch way" would be to provide a separate >> package for the beta dep instead, but you can tell if your idea (of >> bundling) is working if nobody says anything about that. >> >> >> -- >> GPG/PGP ID: C0711BF1
