let's
not forget that this package can be easily revived if a new release
appears.
The VCS package is mostly stable, and it looks to me it's what upstream
supports.
--
a821
On Fri, Feb 07, 2025 at 11:08:42PM +, not...@aur.archlinux.org wrote:
> fridge [1] filed a deletion request for portfolio [2]:
>
> This package is a duplicate of "portfolio-performance-bin", which
> already provides the same software. To avoid redundancy and maintain
> clarity in the AUR, this
On Sun, Jan 19, 2025 at 11:18:46AM +, not...@aur.archlinux.org wrote:
> Not a duplicate of arcanist-git, as it targets a specific branch,
yes, it's is a different branch, but it just a couple of commits
different... OK, fair point.
> [...] but
> nevertheless broken for more than a very long t
On Thu, Nov 21, 2024 at 12:36:20PM +0900, Nicolas Modrzyk wrote:
> I am the owner. What needs to be done?
What do you mean? The package was disowned automatically because you
never addressed the issues pointed out in the comments, and now there
is a pending deletion request.
If you want to delete
On Sat, Oct 26, 2024 at 09:26:18AM +, not...@aur.archlinux.org wrote:
> MarsSeed [1] filed a deletion request for touchegg-nosystemd [2]:
>
> Useless duplicate of Arch/extra/touchegg. [a]
>
> Not a no-systemd package, because it depends on systemd-libs, just
> like its repo counterpart.
Inde
On Wed, Oct 23, 2024 at 09:30:27PM +, not...@aur.archlinux.org wrote:
> a821 [1] filed a deletion request for youtube-to-mp3-bin [2]:
>
> Duplicated of youtube-to-mp3. Upstream does not provide sources, so
> this "-bin" package is not necessary.
>
> [1] https://au
On Fri, Oct 11, 2024 at 05:56:51PM +, not...@aur.archlinux.org wrote:
> eliran [1] filed a request to merge rofi-emoji-git [2] into rofimoji-
> git [3]:
rofi-emoji-git[a] and rofimoji-git[b] are different software because they have
different source repos. I don't think a merge makes sense...
On Sun, Aug 04, 2024 at 02:48:22PM +, not...@aur.archlinux.org wrote:
> vitaliikuzhdin [1] filed a deletion request for mandown-md-viewer [2]:
>
> 'mandown' already exists in 'extra' and 'mandown-git' already exists
> in 'AUR'
mandown in [extra] and mandown-md-viewer in [aur] are different
pr
On Sun, May 12, 2024 at 09:17:27PM +, bemxio wrote:
> Ah, the maintainer has replied and orphaned the package themselves after
> receiving the request! I adopted it and will refactor it later.
Please go to https://aur.archlinux.org/requests to close the request.
Direct link: https://aur.archli
On Sun, May 12, 2024 at 07:41:18PM +0200, archli...@arne-bruecher.de wrote:
> Can I revert this request? The package is indeed not the same as
> tailscale-git and I can maintain it from now on.
>
> On 12.05.24 19:15, not...@aur.archlinux.org wrote:
> > proledatarian [1] filed a deletion request fo
On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 07:26:33PM +, not...@aur.archlinux.org wrote:
> Request #48783 has been Rejected by serebit:
One thing that the original request missed is that this binary package
is actually a pacman package that can be installed with `pacman -U`,
meaning the whole thing is a useless
On Sat, Jan 13, 2024 at 02:25:12PM +, not...@aur.archlinux.org wrote:
> cryptofyre [1] filed a deletion request for cider2-bin [2]:
>
> This is piracy
Not true.
> Cider 2.0+ is a paid product and not FoSS therefore
> should not be distributed via the AUR.
I fail to see what it is being dist
On Tue, Jan 09, 2024 at 04:30:18AM +, Jake Barnes wrote:
> On Tuesday, 19 December 2023 at 23:03, not...@aur.archlinux.org
> wrote:
>> MarsSeed [1] filed a deletion request for postgresql-12 [2]:
>
>> This legacy PostgreSQL v12 (first released in 2019) fails to build on
>> current Arch Linux
On Sat, Dec 02, 2023 at 11:03:32PM +0100, Marcell Meszaros wrote:
> +1 for deletion, but only because this foreign brinary based PKGBUILD
> is very badly configured: does not declare its provides, conflicts and
> dependencies except for qt5-base. So it is clearly inferior to
> upstream-provided .pk
14 matches
Mail list logo
