On 30/09/17 12:00 PM, Alad Wenter via aur-general wrote: > On Sat, Sep 30, 2017 at 04:02:00AM +0000, Adam Fontenot via > aur-general wrote: >> On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 12:19:34PM +0000, Alad Wenter via aur-general wrote >>> On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 02:17:45AM +0000, Adam Fontenot via >>> aur-general wrote: >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> The TU "alad" deleted my package, firefox-clean, from the AUR. I'm >>>> assuming this is a mistake, but I can't contact alad directly because >>>> their email is hidden on their profile. At first glance, it may appear >>>> that my version of the Firefox PKGBUILD in Extra does not do anything >>>> notable, but this is not the case. My package is intended to do three >>>> things: >>>> >>> It's not a mistake. Check the submission guidelines [1]; a package >>> should only be submitted if it's not overly specialized and useful to >>> more than 1 user. In this case, all but a few users will be able to >>> achieve what this package offers by configuration of the regular firefox >>> package in the repositories. >> I disagree strongly. It is useful to multiple people: not only did the >> package already have feedback (a comment from a user), it was >> extremely popular when I posted about it on Reddit the day before you >> deleted it: >> https://www.reddit.com/r/archlinux/comments/72id6q/firefoxclean_a_firefox_build_for_power_users_in/ >> > In that same thread, the top comments reflect the decision on deleting > this package. It should then not come as a surprise that the package > only had a single AUR vote (which are what matters). > >> Furthermore, you have been deleting dozens of AUR packages in the last >> week since you became a TU. Respectfully, perhaps you should check to >> see if your expectations for AUR inclusion are quite as stringent as >> those of the other TUs? >> > You should check before asking consensus from the TU team that your > argument isn't based on personal attacks against them. > Regarding the "survey of TUs", I think this is a bit of an overreach. Although the patches are trivial by themselves, rebasing them against every new version and updating them for API breaks is bound to be a lot of work. An AUR submitter who takes on this task as a favor to 2 or 3 fans is helping them a lot more than someone who changes a configure flag of a 1MB program. >>> If you had such concern about these "features" >>> and wanted to disable them at compile time, there's existing packages >>> which take this further e.g. firefox-esr-privacy. [2] >>> >>> [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/firefox-esr-privacy/ >> Oddly enough, my AUR package does most of what this one does and more, >> but it has the extra advantage of tracking the latest version of >> Firefox instead of ESR. >> > Not really, as any glance over the patches in question shows. > I should add that I would not personally use the package and this is part of the reason why. Building Firefox is a pain because the team intentionally ignores the norms of Linux distro packaging. So if I were building it myself, I would want it to be ESR. >>> A restart button is available through an addon. [3] >>> >>> [3] https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/restart-my-fox >> This will not be usable when Firefox 57 hits, because it (along with >> all other restart addons), isn't compatible with webextensions. I've >> been purging all XUL extensions from my browser, and that's why I >> wrote the patch as a replacement. >> > Regardless of any speculation on your behalf regarding the addon's > functionality in future, it remains trivial functionality. > >> If there's a consensus among TUs that packages like mine are not >> welcome on the AUR, I'm happy to back down and host the PKGBUILD on >> Github. >> > The community guidelines are clear and visible to all on the wiki, > including a warning that packages that ignore them are up for deletion. > >> Cheers, >> Adam > Alad
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
