Re: [PRQ#52809] Deletion Request for hqplayer Accepted

[Robin Candau]

On 1/7/24 19:30, Marcell Meszaros wrote:

On 7 January 2024 18:56:57 GMT+01:00, Robin Candau <an...@archlinux.org> wrote:

On 1/7/24 18:20, Fabio Loli wrote:

Request #52809 has been Accepted by Antiz [1]:

[Autogenerated] Accepted deletion for hqplayer.

[1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/Antiz/

Why deleting hqplayer? Typically we update the main pkgbuild to the new
version and create other pkgbuilds for legacy versions

Also IMO naming of hqplayer pkgbuilds could be harmonized

There are at the moment names and versions are:

hqplayer-embedded         5.3.2
hqplayer-client         5.3.2
hqplayer5             5.3.2
hqplayer4             4.22.1
hqplayer-pro             4.22.2
hqplayer-network-audio-daemon    4.6.0
hqplayer-embedded-sse          5.3.2

Arch PAckagers opinion?

Note however that there isn't hqplayer-pro v5.x or embedded/client at
v4.x

Hi,

I accepted the request as the PKGBUILD was stuck to v3 and did not seem to draw 
a lot of attention (no comment/few old votes).

However, I agree that naming of the PKGBUILDs should be harmonized with 
"hqplayer" pointing to the latest version.

FWIW, all "hqplayer" related packages seems to all be maintained by the same 
account.

I can "resurrect" the "hqplayer" package in favor of a merge request from "hqplayer5" to 
"hqplayer" instead.
How does that sound?

Hi all,

At first I was of the same mind as @FabioLolix.

However, based on upstream's website, as well as AUR maintainer's clarification 
comment, I came to the conclusion that it is not harmful to keep the hqplayer4 
and hqplayer5 packages as they are. Upstream also refers to them as such, and 
they require a separately purchased license. Some people only have a license 
for hqplayer4. But the latter is still maintained by upstream, so it's not 
obsolete.

When it comes to upstream's other applications, they don't have separate major 
versions maintained and offered in parallel, so their naming on AUR is 
straightforward.
With respect to hqplayer4 and hqplayer5, I think this pattern reflects 
upstream's product naming the most clearly.

AUR/hqplayer's last user comment was from 2017.
AUR/hqplayer5 has several comments from 2023.

So it seems users are okay with this naming scheme, and are able to find the 
package they want.

Just my 2 cents.

Cheers,
Marcell (MarsSeed)

Hi,

Thanks for your input!



--
Regards,
Robin Candau / Antiz

After a second thought and regarding how upstream indeed refers/manages their different available version as such (including in sources/artifacts), I actually agree that the hqplayer4 and hqplayer5 packages are actually fine as is.

OpenPGP_0xFDC3040B92ACA748.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key

OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature