Re: [PRQ#52468] Merge Request for muse-hub-bin Rejected

Wait, but why? Isn't this merging? -- Cheers, Aᴀʀᴏɴ OpenPGP_0x4E85967FC7C436BE.asc Description: OpenPGP public key OpenPGP_signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [PRQ#54262] Merge Request for otf-san-francisco-new-york

I'd recommend the reverse, which has a name more in line with the font guidelines. I wouldn't mind using apple-fonts's PKGBUILD though. Cheers, Aᴀʀᴏɴ > On Feb 27, 2024, at 9:14 AM, not...@aur.archlinux.org wrote: > > Bubbu0129 [1] filed a request to merge otf-san-francisco-new-york [2] > into

Re: [PRQ#53231] Deletion Request for zsh-theme-powerlevel10k-git

Nevermind, I've just found the link you've sent me. Thanks MarsSeed! I could've sworn your name had a Z in it somewhere... -- Cheers, Aᴀʀᴏɴ OpenPGP_0x4E85967FC7C436BE.asc Description: OpenPGP public key OpenPGP_signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [PRQ#53232] Deletion Request for zsh-theme-powerlevel10k-bin-git Rejected

They're not; the one without -bin builds the git-status module while the one with -bin doesn't -- Cheers, Aᴀʀᴏɴ OpenPGP_0x4E85967FC7C436BE.asc Description: OpenPGP public key OpenPGP_signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [PRQ#53231] Deletion Request for zsh-theme-powerlevel10k-git

> This is a Git VCS build, not a fixed-version stable package like the one in extra repo. Ah, that makes sense. I assume there's no way to close my own request? -- Cheers, Aᴀʀᴏɴ OpenPGP_0x4E85967FC7C436BE.asc Description: OpenPGP public key OpenPGP_signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digita

Re: [PRQ#53235] Deletion Request for chainner20-bin

I just realized that Fabio had already submitted a request. Could someone reject this one? -- Cheers, Aᴀʀᴏɴ OpenPGP_0x4E85967FC7C436BE.asc Description: OpenPGP public key OpenPGP_signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [PRQ#52468] Merge Request for muse-hub-bin

Looks good! Why are there 3 lines between each line in the license, though? Cheers, Aᴀʀᴏɴ > On Jan 3, 2024, at 6:11 AM, Julian Pollinger wrote: > > Hello everyone, > > I added the terms of service as a license (and some missing dependencies) > >> On 27.12.23 04:25

Fwd: [PRQ#52468] Merge Request for muse-hub-bin

Forwarded Message Subject:Re: [PRQ#52468] Merge Request for muse-hub-bin Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2023 19:29:26 +1100 From: Aaron Cottle To: Aaron Liu Sounds good! I think that seems like the most reasonable licence to me. Thanks very much Aaron, Aaron. On

Re: [PRQ#52468] Merge Request for muse-hub-bin

Hi there! Yes, that does seem to be the better package. I'd support a merge. However, this still lacks a license. Maybe we could copy the musehub.com terms of service [1] ? [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/cgit/aur.git/tree/LICENSE?h=muse-hub-bin -- Cheers, Aᴀʀᴏɴ OpenPGP_0x4E85967FC7C436BE.a

Re: [PRQ#47003] Merge Request for waterfox-current-bin Rejected

Um, from what I see the merge happened and both packages comments are in waterfox-bin now On 2023/9/24 9:32, not...@aur.archlinux.org wrote: Request #47003 has been Rejected by Antiz [1]: Target package doesn't exists anymore [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/Antiz/

Why was muse-hub-bin deleted?

The most I could find was https://lists.archlinux.org/archives/list/aur-requests@lists.archlinux.org/thread/GMY6P7VMAQOQWOOKJT433FBDYQVVXI2D/#GMY6P7VMAQOQWOOKJT433FBDYQVVXI2D which didn't have an answer either