Hi, I posted a message on the package, but the maintainer has not responded yet. Their email is also not a recognised email address (I have tried to contact them regarding my suggestions)
I should have clarified in my last mail that this package is not my own, but one that was brought to my attention on the Arch forums by a new user seeking assistance with it. Since the owner is unreachable, would it be possible to remove the package now (despite the two week rule). If preferred, I'll write a PKGBUILD for the beta aircrack-ng package and update the theharvester PKGBUILD so that the AUR status quo is maintained. I'll immediately aurphan these packages so that someone else can maintain them, however, as I have no interest in these tools.. Please let me know what your thoughts are, and how we should best proceed. Happy holidays, WorMzy On 20 December 2013 13:35, Rashif Ray Rahman <sc...@archlinux.org> wrote: > On 20 December 2013 04:20, WorMzy Tykashi <wormzy.tyka...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 19 December 2013 18:44, Rashif Ray Rahman <sc...@archlinux.org> wrote: >>> Just provide for and conflict with the relevant packages and you don't >>> give anyone any trouble. >> >> It's halfway there, it doesn't conflict with or provide theharvester >> package, though that's something I was going to mention when I comment >> about some changes they should make to the PKGBUILD (shouldn't be an >> 'any' package, binaries shouldn't be in /usr/sbin, etc.). I just >> wanted to check that such packages are allowed before prompting them >> to fix it up. >> >>> But if this whole thing is a package of a real >>> software collection (and not just a mash-up by a packager) then I see >>> no problem. >> >> It's the latter, the package pulls from two different, unrelated >> sources and merges them into one package. The only thing is, neither >> source is otherwise available on the AUR or official repositories (as >> far as I can tell). > > A better way to rephrase what I meant is this: if it's a useful bundle > that people will use (if some people find the beta dep better), then > there is no problem. The "Arch way" would be to provide a separate > package for the beta dep instead, but you can tell if your idea (of > bundling) is working if nobody says anything about that. > > > -- > GPG/PGP ID: C0711BF1