I would ask that the maintainer open a request to merge the packages, then, given the comment history that I read shows you being belligerent about conky-lua-nv being unncessary as the maintainer rightfully defends a package that predates the one you claim to be superior.
Marcell, you are not the deciding factor in a request being approved—ultimately, it is up to us to decide what is accepted and what is rejected. None of us have the time to keep up with your ten new package requests a day, much less write out lengthy "valid, concrete reasons" in an additional email when we decide to deny one of yours. I suggest you think on that. Campbell -------- Original Message -------- On 2/26/24 10:42 PM, Marcell Meszaros <marcell.mesza...@runbox.eu> wrote: > The arguments made by the maintainer appear to hold up, and until > >https://gitlab.archlinux.org/archlinux/packaging/packages/conky/-/issues/1 > >is resolved, this package does have *some* reason to exist. Closing. > > Which arguments exactly? Repo package has all the features that this has. > > Only AUR/conky-cairo has more features than the repo package. > > Maintainer also said he does not disagree with the merge request, and that > he acknowledges that the repo package has gained more and more features. > > >https://gitlab.archlinux.org/archlinux/packaging/packages/conky/-/issues/1 > > This feature is the one that AUR/conky-cairo addresses, but not this one. > > Can you give valid, concrete reasons in favor of keeping conky-lua-nv too, > apart from maintainer's sentiment? >
