On 7 March 2011 12:35, yanchenko.igor@gmail.com
<yanchenko.igor@gmail.com> wrote:
> please delete package pygments3
> (https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=37546) , its in comunity
> now with name python-pygments
>

Deleted. Thank you.

Lukas

Hi,

I am the current maintainer of osd-lyrics
(http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=30489). One of the upstream
developer commented on the package and requested a rename to
osdlyrics, and I have uploaded osdlyrics
(https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=50877) accordingly to AUR.
Although upstream page on googlecode is still osd-lyrics, their github
name is osdlyrics. and I have found a git commit explicitly convert
all osd-lyrics occurrences into osdlyrics. So, osdlyrics should be the
upstream choice for the package's name.
Sorry for all the mess this package has created.

Best Regards,

Done.

-Kyle
http://kmkeen.com



On 7/21/11, Auguste Pop <auguste@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am the current maintainer of osd-lyrics
> (http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=30489). One of the upstream
> developer commented on the package and requested a rename to
> osdlyrics, and I have uploaded osdlyrics
> (https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=50877) accordingly to AUR.
> Although upstream page on googlecode is still osd-lyrics, their github
> name is osdlyrics. and I have found a git commit explicitly convert
> all osd-lyrics occurrences into osdlyrics. So, osdlyrics should be the
> upstream choice for the package's name.
> Sorry for all the mess this package has created.
>
> Best Regards,
>

I would like to request the removal of the package retro-fossil [1], as the
project has switched DVCS and is superceded by retro-bzr [2].

[1] http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=45134
[2] http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=57263

On 04/03/12 11:10, scj@archlinux.us wrote:

I would like to request the removal of the package retro-fossil [1], as the
project has switched DVCS and is superceded by retro-bzr [2].

[1] http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=45134
[2] http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=57263

removed!

--
Jelle van der Waa

Requesting to delete my aur pkg https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=53452
I have made a split package
https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=30375 which incorporates the
former.
Thanks

On 27/06/12 06:20 PM, Skydrome wrote:
> Requesting to delete my aur pkg https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=53452
> I have made a split package
> https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=30375 which incorporates the
> former.
> Thanks
Done. There has been some discussion on this list about whether the
"true && pkgname" hack should be used - but split packages are convenient.

yes i wish i didnt have to that, but if i didnt aur upload wont take
it saying the name needs to be all lowercase...

On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 9:33 PM, Connor Behan <connor.behan@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 27/06/12 06:20 PM, Skydrome wrote:
>> Requesting to delete my aur pkg https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=53452
>> I have made a split package
>> https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=30375 which incorporates the
>> former.
>> Thanks
> Done. There has been some discussion on this list about whether the
> "true && pkgname" hack should be used - but split packages are convenient.
>

Am Wed, 27 Jun 2012 18:33:10 -0700
schrieb Connor Behan <connor.behan@gmail.com>:

> On 27/06/12 06:20 PM, Skydrome wrote:
> > Requesting to delete my aur pkg
> > https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=53452 I have made a split
> > package https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=30375 which
> > incorporates the former.
> > Thanks
> Done. There has been some discussion on this list about whether the
> "true && pkgname" hack should be used - but split packages are
> convenient.
>

No, they are not convenient on AUR! They are only conveniant in the
binary repos!

When do people understand, that split packages in AUR regularly cause
problems as long as split packages are not officially supported by AUR?
They regularly cause problems with the AUR helpers like yaourt,
aurbuild, etc. And there are even more problems if other packages
depend on a subpackage of these split packages on AUR, because neither
pacman nor the AUR helper nor anything else can find those subpackages
and resolve those dependencies.

Either AUR finally gets official support for split packages or split
packages are avoided in AUR.

The problem are not the split packages themselves, the problem is that
AUR can't handle them.

Heiko

On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 10:57:01AM +0200, Heiko Baums wrote:
> Am Wed, 27 Jun 2012 18:33:10 -0700
> schrieb Connor Behan <connor.behan@gmail.com>:
>
> > On 27/06/12 06:20 PM, Skydrome wrote:
> > > Requesting to delete my aur pkg
> > > https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=53452 I have made a split
> > > package https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=30375 which
> > > incorporates the former.
> > > Thanks
> > Done. There has been some discussion on this list about whether the
> > "true && pkgname" hack should be used - but split packages are
> > convenient.
> >
>
> No, they are not convenient on AUR! They are only conveniant in the
> binary repos!
>
> When do people understand, that split packages in AUR regularly cause
> problems as long as split packages are not officially supported by AUR?
> They regularly cause problems with the AUR helpers like yaourt,
> aurbuild, etc. And there are even more problems if other packages
> depend on a subpackage of these split packages on AUR, because neither
> pacman nor the AUR helper nor anything else can find those subpackages
> and resolve those dependencies.

Not this garbage again. When will you understand that guidelines for
PKGBUILD submission aren't based on the inabilities of even less
supported AUR tools?

> Either AUR finally gets official support for split packages or split
> packages are avoided in AUR.

Or projects like yaourt, aurbuild, etc. can figure out a way to support
them. They already contains all sorts of other ugly hacks. Why not
find a way to support this as well?

> The problem are not the split packages themselves, the problem is that
> AUR can't handle them.

The AUR handles them just fine. Just like last time you ranted about
this, you're conflating two very separate problems.