Dear Eli, May be a little off-topic from the application discussion but curious. What is a good way to get those packages in AUR then? Would `audacity-jayesh` or `audacity3` would be an appropriate replacement?
-- Best Jayesh Badwaik Juelich Supercomputing Center Forschungzentrum Juelich On Monday, 21 June 2021 17:58:46 CEST Eli Schwartz via aur-general wrote: > On 6/18/21 1:59 PM, Caleb Maclennan via aur-general wrote: > > If my existing packages or former FOSS involvement doesn't give enough > > fodder for discussion, lets try some unpopular opinions: > > > Speaking of unpopular opinions, holy cow. > > It appears you've been agitating on the AUR comments for some duplicates > of the community/audacity package: > > """ > @yochananmarqos The Arch [community] package has been flagged out of > date for over a year. When exactly is it okay to move on and post an AUR > package? I'd say the delete flag should be dropped and re-filed when the > repo package is up to date. Yes I know v3 hasn't been out that long, but > the minor version bump on the v2 series that was missed a year ago had > other fixes that pushed me to switch to audacity-git, now that is > broken. This package seems quite reasonable given the circumstances. > """ > > So if I understand correctly, you believe that the official rules of the > AUR apply as usual, *EXCEPT* for the exact case they're intended to target? > > audacity 3 is released in March, some AUR users are upset it isn't being > updated in [community] fast enough. > > But... the rules of the AUR state that you must not take this > opportunity to upload "audacity-but-actually-kept-up-to-date" style > packages. > > Your straightforward defense of this is that... a year ago, a minor > version bump took too long also, and therefore "given the circumstances" > it's reasonable to just up and violate the rules of the AUR because this > one package is just, idk, too irresponsibly maintained in [community]? > > ... > > Given the purpose of the Trusted Users to whom you are applying, is not > just to publish packages in [community], but also to moderate and keep > order in the AUR, I find it extremely relevant that halfway through an > otherwise decent application you are advocating for this sort of thing. > > >
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
