On 5/3/19 9:19 AM, Lone_Wolf wrote: > > On 03-05-2019 14:36, Lone_Wolf wrote: >> >> On 02-05-2019 21:42, [email protected] wrote: >>> Request #14809 has been rejected by polyzen [1]: >>> >>> The package name should instead show what's been customized. >>> >>> [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/polyzen/ >> >> N.B. replying to only one of the 4 tickets so discussion stays focused. >> >> Does that mean you prefer >> >> customized-to-match-lone_wolf-view-on-packaging-mesa-trunk-and-llvm-trunk-llvm-git >> >> >> over >> >> lone_wolf-llvm-git ? >> >> >> Because that's the customization these packages have. >> >> Lone_Wolf > > > No need for any TU to reply anymore, as Eschwartz recent actions in > deleting lone_wolf--lvm-git and the 5 other packages following that > scheme make the answer very clear.
What packages? Those literally weren't packages. They were: pkgdesc="placeholder to reserve pkgbase/name for me, will become real package soon" with the commit message: "assign pkgbase to me". I don't see the need for uploading confusing packages that don't do anything and at the current point in time, if someone attempts to install them, they get an empty package. From a technical, procedural standpoint, it would make a lot more sense to first upload the *actual* packages, then submit merge requests to transfer votes and comments to the new package... ... rather than deleting the existing package by moving its votes and comments to something with a completely pointless PKGBUILD that doesn't do anything, resulting in the issue that for the duration of your "real soon", there is *no* package, at all. -- Eli Schwartz Bug Wrangler and Trusted User
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
