On Thu, 2020-12-31 at 20:51 -0500, Eli Schwartz wrote: > I don't acknowledge the "compromise" of using a name you know is > confusing, merely due to your inability to get your preferred name. > > You can't just *ignore* all criticism about the name by saying "well, > I > wanted it to be short and simple and I had no choice, don't look at > me, > nothing is my fault". > > The fact that nightly *in common with VCS* is assumed to be > "development" editions and AU helpers auto-update them with a --devel > flag (not a --vcs flag, mind you), is not justification to upload a > package with false messaging; once again, pipewire-gstreamer-git > would > fulfill this criteria. >
I never denied that -nightly was a bad choice, but pipewire-gstreamer- git doesn't look good either. It sounds like gstreamer is specifically enabled (in contrast to the official package) for some reason. > > > > So you think you "don't need to" elucidate the difference between > your > package, and the package that came first (several years ago), because > "my package is better, therefore I don't need to describe why"? > > If there are two packages, they MUST provide some method of > distinguishing between them to the average user. As the one that came > second, it falls to you by default, to clarify things to users -- and > to > justify the package's continued existence as not being a duplicate. Fine, I now understand that "first come first use" always have higher priority. I am willing to accept this, but is it written somewhere? If not, I hope you can make it clear in the future. > The > only reason I even know it's different under the hood is because I > acquired privileged information first; it wasn't obvious at all. > I admit it isn't obvious from just the package name, but I am curious, what kind of privileged information do you need to acquire when you can just look at the PKGBUILD to find the difference? > Your basic approach here seems to be "I think the other maintainer > sucks > at maintaining, therefore I can do whatever I feel like and if anyone > is > confused, it's the other maintainer's fault for sucking at being a > maintainer". > That was never the intention. I am simply not satisfied with any possible workarounds we have for now, that's why I am trying to discuss for a better solution. If that looks bad to you then I feel sorry. > The only thing you're convincing me of, here, is that maybe I > shouldn't > trust you in the future, period. Is your insistence that rules don't > apply to you, indicative of some deep-seated desire to experience an > account suspension? (Please say "no"... and please make your actions > say > "no" too...) Well, now you would like to assume that I intend to be malicious and you are prepared to apply restrictive measure, just because I have some opinions you don't agree with in some email exchanges? Or is my uploading of pipewire-nightly such an unforgivable violation of some rule that must be corrected with an account ban? To save both of us some trouble I will now step out of this as you wish. Best regards, hexchain
