On 22-04-22 10:42, Doug Newgard via aur-general wrote:
> I think I'll be re-uploading unless you can show me
> where this violates the rules.
No need, both packages have been restored.
They do not have a maintainer, so feel free to pick them back up.
--
George Rawlinson
signature.asc
Descripti
On 2022-04-22 08:31:27, Brett Cornwall via aur-general wrote:
> Secondly, please remember that TUs exist to actually "force" our views onto
> everyone via quality control.
Is that so? In my understanding the TUs job is to enforce the criteria
laid out in the submission rules not your personal opin
On 2022-04-22 10:42, Doug Newgard via aur-general wrote:
> [...] As such, I think I'll be re-uploading unless you can show me
> where this violates the rules.
Without going into the details of this dispute, I will point out that this is
not how the AUR works: the Trusted Users are the moderators o
On Fri, 22 Apr 2022 08:31:27 -0700
Brett Cornwall wrote:
> On 2022-04-22 09:58, Doug Newgard via aur-general wrote:
> >Recently vi-vim-symlink and neovim-symlinks were deleted from the AUR. These
> >are used by a lot of people to set up their systems, and a lot of people
> >want to know why [1].
On 2022-04-22 09:58, Doug Newgard via aur-general wrote:
Recently vi-vim-symlink and neovim-symlinks were deleted from the AUR. These
are used by a lot of people to set up their systems, and a lot of people
want to know why [1]. They do not violate any AUR rules and have been available
in the AUR
Recently vi-vim-symlink and neovim-symlinks were deleted from the AUR. These
are used by a lot of people to set up their systems, and a lot of people
want to know why [1]. They do not violate any AUR rules and have been available
in the AUR for a very long time, well over 6 years for neovim-symlink
