package deleted without reason [complaint]

chmurli · 2011-09-29 15:07:04

Hi,
my pkg has been deleted from AUR. Reson:

The frontpage on AUR [1] states:
"Contributed PKGBUILDs must conform to the Arch Packaging Standards
otherwise they will be deleted!"
The sublime-text-2 package does not comply with the Arch Packaging
Standards [2]:
"Package names should consist of alphanumeric characters only; all
letters should be lowercase."

Oh rly? Which part in my pkgname was not alphanumeric? I see only hyphen so going that way you should delete half of AUR packages. All *-git, *-bzr etc.
Or maybe '-2' is wrong? Well, there is so many other popular packages containing numeric lika that, just search for it. Should they be all deleted too? Good luck with that

Well, I dont really care about this pkg now. I was going to disown it anyway coz too much frequent updates. Anyway it is bad that trusted user cannot comply to rules.

Last edited by chmurli (2011-09-29 15:07:44)

ethail · 2011-09-29 15:20:03

Seems that the -2 is wrong as it can confuse the versioning system.

foobar2-version accepted
foobar-2-version messed up, deleted

That seems the logic

karol · 2011-09-29 15:20:24

Have you read the ML? Maybe the explanations is there. What was the name of your package?

chmurli · 2011-09-29 15:41:12

name is in my first post: sublime-text-2. What is ML? I read package standars on wiki.

yeah, '-2' may seem wrong but there is a lot packages with numbers like this, for example: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php? … &SB=v&SO=d

my point is: that is stupid rule. And if you really thing its necessery than obey it for all packages.

Last edited by chmurli (2011-09-29 15:43:23)

karol · 2011-09-29 15:42:54

chmurli wrote:

yeah, '-2' may seem wrong but there is a lot packages with numbers like this, for example: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php? … &SB=v&SO=d

Huh? You search returns e.g. brother-mfc210c-lpr 1.0.2_1-3 and ogmrip-mpeg 0.2-2. There's a difference between pkgname and version.

https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=18647 firefox32-i18n seem a valid name.

Last edited by karol (2011-09-29 15:44:39)

chmurli · 2011-09-29 15:44:49

karol wrote:

chmurli wrote:
yeah, '-2' may seem wrong but there is a lot packages with numbers like this, for example: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php? … &SB=v&SO=d
Huh? You search returns e.g. brother-mfc210c-lpr 1.0.2_1-3 and ogmrip-mpeg 0.2-2. There's a difference between pkgname and version.

my bad.
https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=31421
https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=27853
https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=48476

trontonic · 2011-09-29 15:49:33

I'm the TU that deleted the package. The package had several problems and oddities. The files were installed to /usr/bin/sublime-text-2/ and the package name had the version number as part of the package name.
There also exists a package named just "sublime-text", that is a better written PKGBUILD, so there is no reason to keep the "sublime-text-2" around, despite the fact that it was submitted before the "sublime-text" package.

If my first reason was not enough, then installing all sorts of files in /usr/bin is covered by this: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Ar … irectories

chmurli · 2011-09-29 16:08:30

trontonic wrote:

I'm the TU that deleted the package. The package had several problems and oddities. The files were installed to /usr/bin/sublime-text-2/ and the package name had the version number as part of the package name.
There also exists a package named just "sublime-text", that is a better written PKGBUILD, so there is no reason to keep the "sublime-text-2" around, despite the fact that it was submitted before the "sublime-text" package.
If my first reason was not enough, then installing all sorts of files in /usr/bin is covered by this: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Ar … irectories

You are almost right. Installation folder was wrong but I fix it today morning and after that package has been deleted . That was issue that exist for over half a year and now you wake up . Yes there is same program under 'correct' name but its based on my package and fixes posted in comments under my pkg. I was planning include this fixes, what I did today. After that both pkgs look the same. So it cant be reason to delete my pkg.

I feel really bad that my pkg was deleted when there is so much other messy packages on AUR. Not to mention out-dated for few years.

.:B:. · 2011-09-29 17:14:13

chmurli wrote:

That was issue that exist for over half a year and now you wake up .

TUs unfortunately do not have a crystal ball. Nor do they have superpowers.

Most packages are deleted because a user reports them as non-compliant. Not because TUs are digging through the thousands of AUR tarballs to see what's wrong where.

I feel really bad that my pkg was deleted when there is so much other messy packages on AUR. Not to mention out-dated for few years.

A package being outdated is no reason for it to be deleted. A package messing up your system is.

fukawi2 · 2011-09-30 00:16:23

@chmurli
You seem to be taking this way too personally. The TU who deleted this package doesn't know you personally (most likely) and didn't do it just to annoy and/or offend you.

For the record, ML == Mailing List, which is where you're much more likely to get input that will help you understand what the problem was compared to complaining and ranting on the forums. Also, see Bikeshed: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Fo … IKESHED.29

Last edited by fukawi2 (2011-09-30 00:16:43)

Arch Linux

#1 2011-09-29 15:07:04

package deleted without reason [complaint]

#2 2011-09-29 15:20:03

Re: package deleted without reason [complaint]

#3 2011-09-29 15:20:24

Re: package deleted without reason [complaint]

#4 2011-09-29 15:41:12

Re: package deleted without reason [complaint]

#5 2011-09-29 15:42:54

Re: package deleted without reason [complaint]

#6 2011-09-29 15:44:49

Re: package deleted without reason [complaint]

#7 2011-09-29 15:49:33

Re: package deleted without reason [complaint]

#8 2011-09-29 16:08:30

Re: package deleted without reason [complaint]

#9 2011-09-29 17:14:13

Re: package deleted without reason [complaint]

#10 2011-09-30 00:16:23

Re: package deleted without reason [complaint]

Board footer