El sáb, 23 mar 2024 a las 17:12, Marcell Meszaros (< marcell.mesza...@runbox.eu>) escribió:
> On 23 March 2024 16:50:53 GMT+01:00, Doug Newgard <dnewg...@outlook.com> > wrote: > >On Sat, 23 Mar 2024 16:34:28 +0100 > >Marcell Meszaros <marcell.mesza...@runbox.eu> wrote: > > > >> >Marcell Meszaros <marcell.mesza...@runbox.eu> wrote: > >> > > >> >> Affected are 10 or so AUR packages, none of which have any viable > use case > >> >> in lib32 at all, and never even had. > >> > > >> > > >> >Really? So you can guarantee that nobody could be using these > libraries for > >> >any local project? It doesn't matter in the least that no AUR package > >> >depends on it. > >> > >> > >> Nobody pushed for getting fixes in this dependency chain for the last 2 > >> years. > >> > >> AV1 and HEIF etc formats were introduced a decade and a half after > Microsoft > >> forced practically all PC OEM's of the world to transition to x86_64. > There > >> are no native libraries and applications that need such in lib32. > >> > >> And if a dependency chain for such a nonexistent use case is rotting for > >> years on AUR, that's pretty much all the evidence one needs to prove > total > >> lack of demand. > >> > >> Just because Arch repo's x86_64 multimedia library chain got slavisly > >> recreated on AUR in lib32 without a thought whether there is any point > at > >> all, it doesn't mean these packages are legitimate and needed entities. > >> > >> Basically these were pushed to AUR due to lack of understanding and due > >> diligence in this matter. > >> > >> I hope this clarifies my line of thinking. > >> > >> Cheers, > >> Marcell (MarsSeed) > > > >Yes, your line of thinking is that if you're not aware of any usecase, it > >should be disallowed. Things don't work that way. I really don't know why > you > >insist on picking fights with people, if they want to maintain it, that's > up to > >them. If they're orphans, whatever, but just stop with all of the extra > crap. > > > I'm not picking any fights. > > The package was an orphan 5 months ago when I filed my deletion request. > Then @jahway603 adopted it and didn't do anything to make its dependency > chain buildable, but he immediately wrote a very hostile but otherwise > ignorant and clueless response to the ML. Please get your facts straight > before unfairly blaming me. > > Instead, please refute my arguments point by point if you can, or stay > away from pointless waste of each other's time and attention. > > > AUR submission guidelines don't say any package can be kept on it if it > has an owner. It says packages here should be useful to more than just a > few people. I think I have demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that this > dependency chain does not qualify as legit AUR entities. While you have > failed to come up with any evidence to the contrary. > > So this leads to the logical conclusion that it is you who is picking a > fight, not me. > > Please continue only in a constructive manner. > > Btw if packages gets deleted fron AUR, their repos still stay on the git > server. At any point in the future any user can recreate them. So if AUR > will exist in a 10 or 20 years from now and some human or alien wants to > put back some historic lib32 package that no one ever used, they will be > able to revive it. XD > constructive manner? my constructive manner: i'm not trust you as TU, please leave that role i need remember you are the only TU has been moderated in two times greetings
