Re: [PRQ#63181] Deletion Request for sm64ex-bin

On Fri Aug 30, 2024 at 3:35 PM PDT, notify wrote: > selurvedu [1] filed a deletion request for sm64ex-bin [2]: > > Warez And not particularly good warez, at that. It's missing all the necessary runtime artifacts outside of the binary that are required to make it work. > [1] https://aur.archlinu

Re: [PRQ#58898] Deletion Request for wayfire-hidpi-xprop-git Rejected

Okay, I’ve unbundled wlroots, for now. At least as long as wayfire-git is tracking 0.17.2 directly. I also moved all submodules into their own sources. > On Apr 7, 2024, at 4:44 PM, Christopher Snowhill wrote: > > This package bundles its own versions of wlroots (0.17.2 as of this

Re: [PRQ#58898] Deletion Request for wayfire-hidpi-xprop-git Rejected

This package bundles its own versions of wlroots (0.17.2 as of this writing) and wf-config (matching the wayfire-git package). Technically, package manager should be preferring in-repo packages over this, especially if they're already installed. I don't know what's up to cause paru to prefer this,

Re: [PRQ#53478] Orphan Request for ttf-ms-win11-auto

Please cancel this request, I have been added as a co-maintainer and have updated the package. I will try to pay attention to the comment stream in a timely fashion. On Thu, Feb 1, 2024 at 1:09 AM wrote: > > Fazzi [1] filed an orphan request for ttf-ms-win11-auto [2]: > > These packages have been

Re: [PRQ#41596] Deletion Request for zdoom

On Thu, May 25, 2023 at 7:42 AM wrote: > > rosenberg [1] filed a deletion request for zdoom [2]: > > Isn't the same as gzdoom? No, I assume it only supports software rendering and doesn't link to libGL or libvulkan. I could be wrong, though. > > [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/rosenberg/ >

Re: [PRQ#41584] Orphan Request for purism-chatty

This mailing list deals with AUR requests for all AUR packages. You don't typically file out of date or orphan requests directly to the mailing list, but by using your account on the AUR web interface and filing it on the package's page. This request you replied to has nothing to do with yours.

Re: [PRQ#41522] Deletion Request for hvl_replay-kode54-git

> On May 20, 2023, at 8:48 AM, not...@aur.archlinux.org wrote: > > Deewiant [1] filed a deletion request for hvl_replay-kode54-git [2]: > > Upstream is gone and I can't find even a fork of it anywhere. Oh, damn, this needed my combo hvl plugin source. Do you still need the original with the

Re: [PRQ#40885] Deletion Request for ttf-iskpota

The AUR is not supplying builds of this package, it merely builds a package locally for a user to install, assuming they supplied the files. There are numerous packages on the AUR for proprietary software and files that the user must supply on their own. On Thu, Apr 6, 2023 at 8:05 PM wrote: > B

Re: [PRQ#39199] Orphan Request for yuzu-mainline-bin

Sorry, I missed that. I jumped the gun on the means of requesting adding. On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 9:01 AM Fabio Loli wrote: > Il 15/12/22 11:35, not...@aur.archlinux.org ha scritto: > > kode54 [1] filed an orphan request for yuzu-mainline-bin [2]: > > > > I would like to be added as a co-maintai

Re: [PRQ#39151] Merge Request for upscayl-appimage

No, `upscayl-appimage` unpacks the AppImage. `upscayl-bin` doesn't unpack it, it just renames it to `upscayl` and stuffs it wholesale in the `/usr/bin` folder. On Mon, Dec 12, 2022 at 8:51 AM wrote: > yochananmarqos [1] filed a request to merge upscayl-appimage [2] into > upscayl-bin [3]: > > Du

Re: [PRQ#37427] Deletion Request for lib32-tcl-ar

> On Sep 15, 2022, at 4:32 PM, not...@aur.archlinux.org wrote: > > poslop [1] filed a deletion request for lib32-tcl-ar [2]: > > The source link needs to be updated as the old one does not exist > this one seems to work > https://versaweb.dl.sourceforge.net/project/tcl/Tcl/8.6.12/tcl8.6.12-sr

Re: [aur-requests] [PRQ#36544] Deletion Request for bilibili-bin

> On Jul 23, 2022, at 3:23 AM, notify--- via aur-requests > wrote: > > zaiic [1] filed a deletion request for bilibili-bin [2]: > > Delete 'https://mirror.ghproxy.com/' from 'source' in PKGBUILD file. > > [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/zaiic/ > [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/b

Re: [aur-requests] [PRQ#36474] Deletion Request for powerpill

l* IP's are blocked throughout the world from downloading the > sources, this should not be deleted. > > Revenge is not a valid reason for dropping a package from AUR. > > On 18 July 2022 10:08:33 GMT+02:00, "Christopher Snowhill (kode54) via > aur-requests" <

Re: [aur-requests] [PRQ#36474] Deletion Request for powerpill

> On Jul 18, 2022, at 12:26 AM, notify--- via aur-requests > wrote: > > XeonDead [1] filed a deletion request for powerpill [2]: > > The author has disabled connections to his storage server based on > GeoIP. Just so happens, I've been hit, so the package can't be built, > or it's dependencie

Re: [aur-requests] [PRQ#33534] Deletion Request for nu1ll1nux

This should really be a merge request into the replacement package. On Fri, Mar 25, 2022 at 10:49 PM notify--- via aur-requests < aur-requests@lists.archlinux.org> wrote: > dqYpb [1] filed a deletion request for nu1ll1nux [2]: > > Package has been renamed. > > [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/accoun

Re: [aur-requests] [PRQ#33096] Deletion Request for whatismyip

> On Mar 9, 2022, at 1:42 AM, notify--- via aur-requests > wrote: > > kleintux [1] filed a deletion request for whatismyip [2]: > > Script is hosted in aur git. no description / upstream url. uses 3th > party service to get the external ip. > > [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/kleintux/

Re: [aur-requests] [PRQ#32651] Deletion Request for pulseaudio-modules-bt

> On Feb 19, 2022, at 7:37 AM, notify--- via aur-requests > wrote: > > MarsSeed [1] filed a deletion request for pulseaudio-modules-bt [2]: > > Package reportedly does not work with PulseAudio v15.0. It is now > obsolete because: > > 1/ developer has deprecated the project in 2021 and moved

[aur-requests] Fwd: [PRQ#31718] Deletion Request for rpcs3

> Begin forwarded message: > > From: not...@aur.archlinux.org > Subject: [PRQ#31718] Deletion Request for rpcs3 > Date: January 28, 2022 at 3:01:54 PM PST > To: aur-requests@lists.archlinux.org > Cc: kod...@gmail.com > Reply-To: nore...@aur.archlinux.org > > kode54 [1] filed a deletion request

[aur-requests] [PRQ#31719] Merge Request for rpcs3

> Begin forwarded message: > > From: not...@aur.archlinux.org > Subject: [PRQ#31719] Merge Request for rpcs3 > Date: January 28, 2022 at 3:06:41 PM PST > To: aur-requests@lists.archlinux.org > Cc: kod...@gmail.com > Reply-To: nore...@aur.archlinux.org > > kode54 [1] filed a request to merge rpc

Re: [aur-requests] [PRQ#29016] Deletion Request for balena-etcher

> On Nov 4, 2021, at 8:36 AM, notify--- via aur-requests > wrote: > > zhullyb [1] filed a deletion request for balena-etcher [2]: > > Out of date for 2 months, and the software should be booted with > electron12. This should be an orphan request, and should technically be preceded by a re

Re: [aur-requests] [PRQ#29010] Merge Request for blockbench

> On Nov 4, 2021, at 4:45 AM, notify--- via aur-requests > wrote: > > mrapplexz [1] filed a request to merge blockbench [2] into blockbench- > bin [3]: > > The package is built from binary release, so it should be named > 'blockbench-bin', not 'blockbench' Not unless the source code for bl

Re: [aur-requests] [PRQ#28897] Merge Request for whatpulse

> On Oct 25, 2021, at 10:58 PM, notify--- via aur-requests > wrote: > > ahmubashshir [1] filed a request to merge whatpulse [2] into > whatpulse-bin [3]: > > This package has been out-of-date for a month, and doesn't follow the > convention that binary packages should have -bin suffix. > >

Re: [aur-requests] [PRQ#28495] Deletion Request for multimc-git Rejected

> On Sep 29, 2021, at 1:06 AM, notify--- via aur-requests > wrote: > > Request #28495 has been rejected by Morganamilo [1]: > > Git packages are different from -bins and therefore have their own > place. > > [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/Morganamilo/ Yes, everyone who wants to use t

Re: [aur-requests] [PRQ#28542] Orphan Request for wayfire-git

> On Sep 29, 2021, at 8:40 AM, notify--- via aur-requests > wrote: > > kugelblitz [1] filed an orphan request for wayfire-git [2]: > > Package has been out of date for months (to the point where the -git > is more outdated than the release), and the maintainer has not replied > to my attemp

Re: [aur-requests] [PRQ#28274] Deletion Request for petalinux-v2020.1

> On Sep 22, 2021, at 12:03 AM, Amin Vakil via aur-requests > wrote: > > On 9/21/21 20:58, Alex Henrie wrote: >>> On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 12:01 AM Amin Vakil wrote: >>> >>> On 9/20/21 20:38, Alex Henrie wrote: On Sat, Sep 18, 2021 at 12:19 AM wrote: > > aminvakil [1] filed a

Re: [aur-requests] [PRQ#27960] Deletion Request for multimc-git Rejected

xplain that in comments for the benefit of other users > with notifications enabled (and for whoever reviews the request to make sense > of things) before filing a deletion request. > > On 2021-09-08 09:26, Christopher Snowhill (kode54) via aur-requests wrote: >> Upstream no longer

Re: [aur-requests] [PRQ#27960] Deletion Request for multimc-git Rejected

Upstream no longer supports building from source. And in fact, the new Microsoft Account authentication feature requires an Azure account and account secrets which are intentionally left out of the repository. > On Sep 7, 2021, at 2:26 PM, notify--- via aur-requests > wrote: > > Request #279

Re: [aur-requests] [PRQ#27232] Deletion Request for fedora-firefox-wayland-bin

Please verify it is actually defaulting to Wayland without any command line switches or environment variables. > On Jul 24, 2021, at 8:25 PM, notify--- via aur-requests > wrote: > > hossamdash [1] filed a deletion request for fedora-firefox-wayland-bin > [2]: > > firefox from the main repos

Re: [aur-requests] [PRQ#27191] Deletion Request for minecraft-free-bin

Dammit, it bodged my first attempt to reply. This stupid app appears to just load Minecraft classic in an iframe from classic.minecraft.net. > On Jul 23, 2021, at 10:44 PM, notify--- via aur-requests > wrote: > > kleintux [1] filed a deletion request for minecraft-free-bin [2]: > > The PKGBU

Re: [aur-requests] [PRQ#27191] Deletion Request for minecraft-free-bin

> On Jul 23, 2021, at 10:44 PM, notify--- via aur-requests > wrote: > > kleintux [1] filed a deletion request for minecraft-free-bin [2]: > > The PKGBUILD is completely wrong. > The source and licence is shady. > > [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/kleintux/ > [2] https://aur.archlinux

Re: [aur-requests] [PRQ#25316] Deletion Request for multimc-lhaus-git

kage is still on the aur and at the very > least, it's enabling piracy. > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > On Saturday, May 8th, 2021 at 4:23 PM, Christopher Snowhill > wrote: >> >> While we're narcing on Minecraft launchers, may as well look into tlauncher &

Re: [aur-requests] [PRQ#26586] Orphan Request for openaptx-git

Is it still building? Because Git packages aren't considered out of date if they consistently fetch and build the latest source code. A new tag shouldn't affect that. > On Jun 22, 2021, at 5:03 PM, notify--- via aur-requests > wrote: > > Kicker0429 [1] filed an orphan request for openaptx-git

Re: [aur-requests] [PRQ#25247] Deletion Request for chaotic-keyring

What about the chaotic-mirrorlist package? That's clearly a mirrorlist file for an unofficial user repository. > On Tuesday, May 04, 2021 at 4:06 AM, notify--- via aur-requests > mailto:aur-requests@lists.archlinux.org)> > wrote: > Alad [1] filed a deletion request for chaotic-keyring [2]: > >

Re: [aur-requests] [PRQ#25316] Deletion Request for multimc-lhaus-git

While we're narcing on Minecraft launchers, may as well look into tlauncher as well, I hear that one's been on AUR since at least 2015, and possibly supports the same "offline" mode. > On Thursday, May 06, 2021 at 6:59 PM, notify--- via aur-requests > mailto:aur-requests@lists.archlinux.org)>

Re: [aur-requests] [PRQ#24672] Orphan Request for bottom-git

Are you sure it doesn't just fetch the latest git version and generate a new version number on invocation of makepkg? > On Apr 11, 2021, at 7:36 PM, notify--- via aur-requests > wrote: > > ronin [1] filed an orphan request for bottom-git [2]: > > Version of this package is way behind > > [1

Re: [aur-requests] [PRQ#24378] Merge Request for python-kb

I did not say you had to, but it helps if anyone is actually using the package, to notice on update that it changed name. Safe to ignore I guess if nobody has voted for the package. > On Mar 25, 2021, at 9:40 PM, notify--- via aur-requests > wrote: > > gnebbia [1] filed a request to merge py

Re: [aur-requests] [PRQ#24375] Deletion Request for python-kb

, and am not able in these > days to look up how to do this "merge". > > Greetings, > Giuseppe > > On 26/03/21 04:30, Christopher Snowhill wrote: >> >> As I said, it should be a merge request, so that requests to the old package >> get redirected. >

Re: [aur-requests] [PRQ#24375] Deletion Request for python-kb

orks nicely. > So we can delete python-kb. > > > On 26/03/21 03:52, Christopher Snowhill wrote: > > > > > On Thursday, Mar 25, 2021 at 7:47 PM, notify--- via aur-requests > > > > > (mailto:aur-requests@lists.archlinux.org)> wrote: > > > gnebbia [1]

Re: [aur-requests] [PRQ#24375] Deletion Request for python-kb

> On Thursday, Mar 25, 2021 at 7:47 PM, notify--- via aur-requests > mailto:aur-requests@lists.archlinux.org)> > wrote: > gnebbia [1] filed a deletion request for python-kb [2]: > > I request the deletion of this package for two reasons: > 1) the package is out-of-date > 2) More importantly this

Re: [aur-requests] Request: libksysguard-git

> On Mar 24, 2021, at 8:07 PM, Eli Schwartz via aur-requests > wrote: > > On 3/24/21 10:04 PM, Dániel Vizy via aur-requests wrote: >> Dear Devs, >> >> I would like to request a git version for libksysguard based on >> invent.kde.org >> >> There

Re: [aur-requests] [PRQ#24366] Deletion Request for bearlibterminal-hg

Sounds more like this package should be merged into that one, so anyone currently still using it should be redirected to the replacement. > On Wednesday, Mar 24, 2021 at 10:40 AM, notify--- via aur-requests > mailto:aur-requests@lists.archlinux.org)> > wrote: > gyscos [1] filed a deletion reque

Re: [aur-requests] [PRQ#24246] Deletion Request for vim-forest-night-git

Same for this one, merge request. On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 7:45 PM notify--- via aur-requests < aur-requests@lists.archlinux.org> wrote: > sainnhe [1] filed a deletion request for vim-forest-night-git [2]: > > The upstream has renamed this color scheme as everforest. I've created > a new pkgbase f

Re: [aur-requests] [PRQ#24245] Deletion Request for neovim-forest-night-git

This should technically be a merge request, then. On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 7:45 PM notify--- via aur-requests < aur-requests@lists.archlinux.org> wrote: > sainnhe [1] filed a deletion request for neovim-forest-night-git [2]: > > The upstream has renamed this color scheme as everforest. I've create

Re: [aur-requests] [PRQ#23743] Deletion Request for brutal-legend-hib

What? The developer let the primary domain expire, but they still list it on their main site, which is still maintained: https://www.doublefine.com/games/brutal-legend And the Humble Bundle store still sells it here: https://www.humblebundle.com/store/brutal-legend Not sure if the DRM-free dir

Re: [aur-requests] [PRQ#23520] Deletion Request for checkra1n-cn

It doesn't even look like a legitimate package, all it does is fetch a script and run it. On Sat, Feb 6, 2021 at 4:47 PM notify--- via aur-requests < aur-requests@lists.archlinux.org> wrote: > hwittenborn [1] filed a deletion request for checkra1n-cn [2]: > > Seems to try to look like the officia