Hi,

kdeplasma-addons-applets-daisy
http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=31392

is unmaintained and duplicates

plasma-daisy-plasmoid
http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=25203

so can probably be safely deleted.

Incidentally, is there any naming convention for KDE plasmoid packages? A
quick search reveals a whole range of approaches:

http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?O=0&K=plasm&do_Search=Go

Appending -plasmoid seems the most popular, but having kdeplasma-addons or
something simliar at the start of the package name also seems sensible.

Thanks,

Pete.

On 14 June 2010 14:00, Peter Lewis <pete@muddygoat.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> kdeplasma-addons-applets-daisy
> http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=31392
>
> is unmaintained and duplicates
>
> plasma-daisy-plasmoid
> http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=25203
>
> so can probably be safely deleted.
>
> Incidentally, is there any naming convention for KDE plasmoid packages? A
> quick search reveals a whole range of approaches:
>
> http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?O=0&K=plasm&do_Search=Go
>
> Appending -plasmoid seems the most popular, but having kdeplasma-addons or
> something simliar at the start of the package name also seems sensible.

>From [ http://www.archlinux.org/packages/?q=plasma ]:

kdeplasma-addons-applets-${plasmoid}

Since the one following the naming convention is unmaintained, I would
suggest adopting it with the contents of the other one. But I have no
problem with deleting it, since it meets most of the criteria for
removal.


--
GPG/PGP ID: B42DDCAD

On Monday 14 Jun 2010 at 17:23 Ray Rashif wrote:
> On 14 June 2010 14:00, Peter Lewis <pete@muddygoat.org> wrote:
> > kdeplasma-addons-applets-daisy
> > http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=31392
> >
> > is unmaintained and duplicates
> >
> > plasma-daisy-plasmoid
> > http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=25203
> >
> > so can probably be safely deleted.
> >
> > Incidentally, is there any naming convention for KDE plasmoid packages? A
> > quick search reveals a whole range of approaches:
> >
> > http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?O=0&K=plasm&do_Search=Go
> >
> > Appending -plasmoid seems the most popular, but having kdeplasma-addons
> > or something simliar at the start of the package name also seems
> > sensible.
> >
> >From [ http://www.archlinux.org/packages/?q=plasma ]:
> kdeplasma-addons-applets-${plasmoid}
>
> Since the one following the naming convention is unmaintained, I would
> suggest adopting it with the contents of the other one. But I have no
> problem with deleting it, since it meets most of the criteria for
> removal.

Sounds sensible - I'm happy to adopt the unmaintained one, but I notice that
Bram Schoenmakers is maintaining the other version so should have first
refusal.

(cc Bram)

Cheers,

Pete.

On 14 June 2010 22:43, Peter Lewis <pete@muddygoat.org> wrote:
> On Monday 14 Jun 2010 at 17:23 Ray Rashif wrote:
>> On 14 June 2010 14:00, Peter Lewis <pete@muddygoat.org> wrote:
>> > kdeplasma-addons-applets-daisy
>> > http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=31392
>> >
>> > is unmaintained and duplicates
>> >
>> > plasma-daisy-plasmoid
>> > http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=25203
>> >
>> > so can probably be safely deleted.
>> >
>> > Incidentally, is there any naming convention for KDE plasmoid packages? A
>> > quick search reveals a whole range of approaches:
>> >
>> > http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?O=0&K=plasm&do_Search=Go
>> >
>> > Appending -plasmoid seems the most popular, but having kdeplasma-addons
>> > or something simliar at the start of the package name also seems
>> > sensible.
>> >
>> >From [ http://www.archlinux.org/packages/?q=plasma ]:
>> kdeplasma-addons-applets-${plasmoid}
>>
>> Since the one following the naming convention is unmaintained, I would
>> suggest adopting it with the contents of the other one. But I have no
>> problem with deleting it, since it meets most of the criteria for
>> removal.
>
> Sounds sensible - I'm happy to adopt the unmaintained one, but I notice that
> Bram Schoenmakers is maintaining the other version so should have first
> refusal.

Yes, it would be up to Bram. He could either:

1) keep on maintaining current package
2) disown current package and adopt the orphan
3) disown current package and let someone else (you) adopt the orphan


--
GPG/PGP ID: B42DDCAD

2010/6/14 Ray Rashif <schivmeister@gmail.com>:

Hi,

>>> Since the one following the naming convention is unmaintained, I would
>>> suggest adopting it with the contents of the other one. But I have no
>>> problem with deleting it, since it meets most of the criteria for
>>> removal.
>>
>> Sounds sensible - I'm happy to adopt the unmaintained one, but I notice that
>> Bram Schoenmakers is maintaining the other version so should have first
>> refusal.
>
> Yes, it would be up to Bram. He could either:
>
> 1) keep on maintaining current package
> 2) disown current package and adopt the orphan
> 3) disown current package and let someone else (you) adopt the orphan

Is it that important, the naming convention? Still, I have no problem
with taking option 2. Downside is that the current package loses its
votes. Not that I attach much value to that, but maybe someone else
cares.

Kind regards,

--
Bram Schoenmakers

What is mind? No matter. What is matter? Never mind.
(Punch, 1855)

On 15 June 2010 23:37, Bram Schoenmakers <lists@bramschoenmakers.nl> wrote:
> 2010/6/14 Ray Rashif <schivmeister@gmail.com>:
>
> Hi,
>
>>>> Since the one following the naming convention is unmaintained, I would
>>>> suggest adopting it with the contents of the other one. But I have no
>>>> problem with deleting it, since it meets most of the criteria for
>>>> removal.
>>>
>>> Sounds sensible - I'm happy to adopt the unmaintained one, but I notice that
>>> Bram Schoenmakers is maintaining the other version so should have first
>>> refusal.
>>
>> Yes, it would be up to Bram. He could either:
>>
>> 1) keep on maintaining current package
>> 2) disown current package and adopt the orphan
>> 3) disown current package and let someone else (you) adopt the orphan
>
> Is it that important, the naming convention? Still, I have no problem
> with taking option 2. Downside is that the current package loses its
> votes. Not that I attach much value to that, but maybe someone else
> cares.

Nope, not that important or big of a deal (at least not as long as
it's in [unsupported]).

The only benefit is that you stay in line with the naming in [extra],
so it would then be more search-friendly. And yes, the votes will be
lost, but they can grow again

In any case, let us know which option you're comfortable with so we
can remove one of them.

If you do go with (2), I'd suggest that you add:

replaces=('plasma-daisy-plasmoid')

Or with (1), you could:

provides=('kdeplasma-addons-applets-daisy')


--
GPG/PGP ID: B42DDCAD

On Tuesday 15 Jun 2010 at 22:04 Ray Rashif wrote:
> On 15 June 2010 23:37, Bram Schoenmakers <lists@bramschoenmakers.nl> wrote:
> >> Yes, it would be up to Bram. He could either:
> >>
> >> 1) keep on maintaining current package
> >> 2) disown current package and adopt the orphan
> >> 3) disown current package and let someone else (you) adopt the orphan
> >
> > Is it that important, the naming convention? Still, I have no problem
> > with taking option 2. Downside is that the current package loses its
> > votes. Not that I attach much value to that, but maybe someone else
> > cares.
>
> Nope, not that important or big of a deal (at least not as long as
> it's in [unsupported]).
>
> The only benefit is that you stay in line with the naming in [extra],
> so it would then be more search-friendly. And yes, the votes will be
> lost, but they can grow again
>
> In any case, let us know which option you're comfortable with so we
> can remove one of them.

Yes, whatever the importance or lack thereof of naming conventions, I was just
pointing out the duplication. There should be only one package, at least.

Pete.

2010/6/15 Ray Rashif <schivmeister@gmail.com>:

Hi,

>>> Yes, it would be up to Bram. He could either:
>>>
>>> 1) keep on maintaining current package
>>> 2) disown current package and adopt the orphan
>>> 3) disown current package and let someone else (you) adopt the orphan

[...]

> If you do go with (2), I'd suggest that you add:
>
> replaces=('plasma-daisy-plasmoid')

I adopted the orphan package with the proper name and replaced it with
my PKGBUILD. I will update this one in the future, so I'm fine with
removing the old one (plasma-daisy-plasmoid,
http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=25203 ).

Kind regards,

--
Bram Schoenmakers

What is mind? No matter. What is matter? Never mind.
(Punch, 1855)

On 18 June 2010 03:51, Bram Schoenmakers <lists@bramschoenmakers.nl> wrote:
> 2010/6/15 Ray Rashif <schivmeister@gmail.com>:
>
> Hi,
>
>>>> Yes, it would be up to Bram. He could either:
>>>>
>>>> 1) keep on maintaining current package
>>>> 2) disown current package and adopt the orphan
>>>> 3) disown current package and let someone else (you) adopt the orphan
>
> [...]
>
>> If you do go with (2), I'd suggest that you add:
>>
>> replaces=('plasma-daisy-plasmoid')
>
> I adopted the orphan package with the proper name and replaced it with
> my PKGBUILD. I will update this one in the future, so I'm fine with
> removing the old one (plasma-daisy-plasmoid,
> http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=25203 ).

OK done, keep up the good work


--
GPG/PGP ID: B42DDCAD