Re: About the intentionally duplicated package wechat-beta-bwrap and wechat-universal and unmaintained orginal package wechat-uos

[Kimiblock Moe]

Hi,

It has been more than a month since this thread was active, and this 
thread is approaching 3 months old. I'm writing this to request an 
update about this duplicated package situation.


I hope those 2 requests[a][b] are dealt with sooner than later. Arch 
users generally use AUR, a community driven packaging effort. But this 
situation really let me, a packager feel upset. I understand the fact 
that PMs are really busy about moderation stuffs, but that doesn't mean 
2 duplicated packages, as discussed above, can live so long without 
being taken down. What adds on top is one of the wechat-beta-bwrap 
maintainer's problematic statement at PRQ#57379, taking users' mislead 
votes as their power. Packaging such a proprietary software and sandbox 
requires efforts, and that isn't worth being invested by a packager when 
some random package can duplicate the original one and take the votes away.


Sorry for the noise there. Looking forward to an update.


--
Sincerely,
Kimiblock

[a]: 
https://lists.archlinux.org/archives/list/aur-reque...@lists.archlinux.org/thread/T2NYE4D4OHPQXSOFPZXA6ARBHIQT7XZJ
[b]: 
https://lists.archlinux.org/archives/list/aur-reque...@lists.archlinux.org/thread/WW3N5GWU2KRID4PF42OX7Y7DA37O3M5Y



OpenPGP_0x42A757534D542728.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key


OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: About the intentionally duplicated package wechat-beta-bwrap and wechat-universal and unmaintained orginal package wechat-uos

[Kimiblock Moe]

Hi,
Thanks you for spending time to investigate. While it is true both versions 
exist, it is the wechat-uos old package which is still on their store. 
wechat-universal-bwrap is still a duplicate because of the same source


--
Sincerely, 
Kimiblock

Re: About the intentionally duplicated package wechat-beta-bwrap and wechat-universal and unmaintained orginal package wechat-uos

[Muflone]

Hi everyone


I've felt that it's necessary to summarize up my thoughts towards this 
messy WeChat situation on the AUR.


Above all, the "wechat-uos-bwrap" is the first package containing the 
new (and originally leaked on a BBS...) so called "Universal" version on 
the AUR. And there a clearly evidences showing that other packages such 
as "wechat-beta-bwrap" and "wechat-universal-bwrap" (sorry for the typo 
before) are duplicate packages of the original "wechat-uos-bwrap". Thus, 
according to the AUR submission guidelines[a] such packages should not 
be submitted to AUR in the first place. If one want to change the 
package name, they should discuss this in the comments area under the 
package details in the AURWeb.



First of all let me try to understand the correct situation, I've read 
all the previous messages and it seems to me Tencent still maintains 
both softwares/versions at the same time.


If this is correct, where BOTH versions are still updated regularly, 
then both packages can co-exist in the AUR.


At the opposite, whenever a package is the older version and a newer - 
even if entirely different (QT vs Electron) then the newer version 
should replace the previous version, regardless the backend framework used.


What is the current situation for both softwares?

Sorry but I'm not familiar with Chinese and I might misunderstand by 
trying to read the qq website by myself.



Regards

--
Fabio Castelli aka Muflone

Re: About the intentionally duplicated package wechat-beta-bwrap and wechat-universal and unmaintained orginal package wechat-uos

[Lime In a Jacket (Aaron Liu)]

No, I was the one who messed things up. I clicked on the button to reply to you 
outside of the list, which meant you had to create a new thread.

Cheers,
Aᴀʀᴏɴ

Re: About the intentionally duplicated package wechat-beta-bwrap and wechat-universal and unmaintained orginal package wechat-uos

[Kimiblock Moe]

Hi,

Seems that replying on an iPhone's built-in Mail app will mess 
something up, sorry for creating a new issue.



--
Sincerely,
Kimiblock

Re: About the intentionally duplicated package wechat-beta-bwrap and wechat-universal and unmaintained orginal package wechat-uos

[Aaron Liu]

Apologies for replying incorrectly. The original thread would be at 
https://lists.archlinux.org/archives/list/aur-general@lists.archlinux.org/thread/T4I2ZYPOPHTIKYJTUSB7CMHSNA6BHIZ7/.


--
Cheers,
Aᴀʀᴏɴ



OpenPGP_0x4E85967FC7C436BE.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key


OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: About the intentionally duplicated package wechat-beta-bwrap and wechat-universal and unmaintained orginal package wechat-uos

[Muflone]

Hi




Hi Aᴀʀᴏɴ,

The duplicated package has 55 votes, while the original version 
wechat-uos-qt has 19.


I’m not losing patience though, just a little curious about why this 
thread appeared inactive. I guess PMs have been flooded with requests 
recently…





This request is complex and requires a better knowledge about these 
packages.


I have to read the whole thread again as it's not clear at all to me.


Regards

--
Fabio Castelli aka Muflone

Re: About the intentionally duplicated package wechat-beta-bwrap and wechat-universal and unmaintained orginal package wechat-uos

[Kimiblock Moe]




Hi Aᴀʀᴏɴ,

The duplicated package has 55 votes, while the original version wechat-uos-qt 
has 19. 

I’m not losing patience though, just a little curious about why this thread 
appeared inactive. I guess PMs have been flooded with requests recently…


--
Sincerely,
Kimiblock

Re: About the intentionally duplicated package wechat-beta-bwrap and wechat-universal and unmaintained orginal package wechat-uos

[Kimiblock Moe]

Hi,

Sorry to make a bump here, but it has been more than a month since this 
thread gone quiet, and PM's are not really responding to these 2 
requests regarding wechat-universal-bwrap and wechat-beta-bwrap. I 
understand the fact that requests are really flooding recently, but 
this has to be solved. It is sad for me to see an original package made 
by me get duplicated 2 times, and duplication isn't eliminated. To the 
point where maintaining AUR packages seems pointless because someone 
can just copy and modify your script to create a new package featuring 
the exact same content. I request Package Maintainers spend some time 
solving this messy situation. If there is any evidence that needs to be 
pointed out, let me know.



--
Sincerely,
Kimiblock

Re: About the intentionally duplicated package wechat-beta-bwrap and wechat-universal and unmaintained orginal package wechat-uos

[Lime In a Jacket (Aaron Liu)]

Besides what Kimiblock said, the difference between the normal package and a 
package with a -qt suffix is also much clearer to anyone not familiar with UOS 
mythos.

Cheers,
Aᴀʀᴏɴ

Re: About the intentionally duplicated package wechat-beta-bwrap and wechat-universal and unmaintained orginal package wechat-uos

[Kimiblock Moe]

I agree the fact that this so-called universal WeChat is not entirely exclusive 
to UOS, but this specific version borrowed from UOS needs a library called 
libuosdevicea to properly login into a WeChat account. Otherwise, it will just 
show the login failed prompt. Due to the proprietary code, we don’t know for 
sure whether those Kylin packages contain the exact same feature… What I 
concern about is the Universal advertising may let people confuse the new 
package with the old Electron version, as they are both technically using a 
universal graphical UI framework (Qt + Custom Chromium or Electron).


--
Sincerely, 
Kimiblock

Re: About the intentionally duplicated package wechat-beta-bwrap and wechat-universal and unmaintained orginal package wechat-uos

[Guoxin Pu]

Hello,

在 2024/3/17 03:56, Aaron Liu written:
To reduce this confusion, maybe the latter version's package should be 
named like "wechat-uos-qt" instead.


Sorry but this QT version of Wechat is so-called "universal" because it 
is "universal" to multiple China state-backed Linux distros and multiple 
China owned CPU architectures, no longer binded to UOS's own stack. It 
is not only released onto UOS and not binded to UOS. It is just that UOS 
jumps out to advertise it, not that they owns it. We "borrow" it from 
the UOS deb library because its repo is more open and freely available 
to "borrow" from, but it surely can be "borrowed" from another 
state-backed distro's library.


The following is the APT search result of "wechat" on another 
Debian-based Linux distro, Kylin Linux [a] Desktop, on Phytium ARM64 
platform:



$ apt search wechat
Sorting... Done
Full Text Search... Done
biometric-driver-wechat/10.1-2303-updates,now 1.0.0.1-0k0.3 arm64 
[installed]

 Kylin Biometric Authentication Driver

biometric-driver-wechat-common/10.1-2303-updates,now 1.0.0.1-0k0.3 
arm64 [installed,automatic]

 Kylin Biometric Authentication Driver

cxbottle-wechat/default,default,default,default 21.0.0~beta2-1 all
 The wechat CrossOver Bottle.

cxbottle-wechat-v1.1/default,default,default,default 20.0.3-1 all
 The wechat-v1.1 CrossOver Bottle.

kylin-kwre-wechat/default,default 21.1.3-1-3.3.5.50kylin4 arm64
 Wechat-3.3.5.50 for Windows based on box86+crossover startup

libkywechat/10.1-2303-updates 0.0.1kylin8 arm64
 support for kywechat of biometric.

wechat-beta/default,default 1.0.0.238 arm64
 wechat from Tencent


The following is its os-release file:


$ cat /etc/os-release
NAME="Kylin"
VERSION="银河麒麟桌面操作系统V10 (SP1)"
VERSION_US="Kylin Linux Desktop V10 (SP1)"
ID=kylin
ID_LIKE=debian
PRETTY_NAME="Kylin V10 SP1"
VERSION_ID="v10"
HOME_URL="http://www.kylinos.cn/;
SUPPORT_URL="http://www.kylinos.cn/support/technology.html;
BUG_REPORT_URL="http://www.kylinos.cn/;
PRIVACY_POLICY_URL="http://www.kylinos.cn;
VERSION_CODENAME=kylin
UBUNTU_CODENAME=kylin
PROJECT_CODENAME=V10SP1
KYLIN_RELEASE_ID="2303"


Note that Kylin Linux has multiple flavors: a feroda / CentOS based one 
for server, and another Debian / Ubuntu based one for Desktop.


Therefore, bearing name "uos" in its name is not right. Using its 
advertised name "WeChat (Universal)" is more appropriate and ensures a 
unified desktop experience.


Also, I don't think "-qt" is an appropriate name. Most of the packages 
in Arch repo that has "-qt" in their names is only the GUI part of the 
program that depends on the base component, and they depend on the 
corresponding base component to work [b]. They can be considered as the 
"qt" split packages from a bigger full package. WeChat (Universal) on 
the other hand, is a whole package, that has no distinction between its 
base component and the GUI part. It works as a whole with multiple 
components, and the QT GUI part is only one part of the program that 
could not be splitted out.



[a]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kylin_(operating_system)

[b]: https://archlinux.org/packages/?q=-qt


Yours sincerely,

Guoxin "7Ji" Pu

Re: About the intentionally duplicated package wechat-beta-bwrap and wechat-universal and unmaintained orginal package wechat-uos

[Kimiblock Moe]

Hi,

I've introduced a split package `wechat-uos-qt` whose pkgbase is 
`wechat-uos-bwrap`. The old `wechat-uos-bwrap` pkgname will be removed 
after a certain amount of time to ensure users will have a smooth 
upgrade to `wechat-uos-qt`.


Package contents are slowly being transferred to the new split package. 
As a result, `wechat-uos-bwrap` will gradually become an empty package 
with replaces, conflicts, and other dependency-related properties.


(Waiting for PMs to initiate the merge operation, and thanks for 
everyone providing proposals on this thread)



--
Sincerely,
Kimiblock

Re: About the intentionally duplicated package wechat-beta-bwrap and wechat-universal and unmaintained orginal package wechat-uos

[David C. Rankin]

On 3/16/24 14:56, Aaron Liu wrote:
To reduce this confusion, maybe the latter version's package should be named 
like "wechat-uos-qt" instead.


Make good sense. I for one would prefer a Qt backend over whatever electron is 
and it would make identifying the toolkit used easier.


--
David C. Rankin, J.D.,P.E.

Re: About the intentionally duplicated package wechat-beta-bwrap and wechat-universal and unmaintained orginal package wechat-uos

[Lime In a Jacket (Aaron Liu)]

Ey,

> On Mar 17, 2024, at 2:36 AM, 7Ji  wrote:
> 
> > Maligning other FOSS projects or distributions, or any other operating 
> > systems and their users is prohibited.
> 
> The FOSS here only limits the scope before the first comma, not after. We 
> should show respect towards other projects, FOSS or not.

The only thing "FOSS" doesn't apply to is "other operating systems and their 
users", which is the only thing after the comma. The Arch COC serve to prevent 
controversy and bad feelings. So far, sour feelings towards proprietary 
projects have not produced such. Anyways, it would serve better to have a 
shorter and more descriptive name for that option.

As you say, I am indeed incorrect that the package must end in a -bin suffix.

Cheers,
Aᴀʀᴏɴ

Re: About the intentionally duplicated package wechat-beta-bwrap and wechat-universal and unmaintained orginal package wechat-uos

[Kimiblock Moe]

Hi all,

I've felt that it's necessary to summarize up my thoughts towards this 
messy WeChat situation on the AUR.


Above all, the "wechat-uos-bwrap" is the first package containing the 
new (and originally leaked on a BBS...) so called "Universal" version 
on the AUR. And there a clearly evidences showing that other packages 
such as "wechat-beta-bwrap" and "wechat-universal-bwrap" (sorry for the 
typo before) are duplicate packages of the original "wechat-uos-bwrap". 
Thus, according to the AUR submission guidelines[a] such packages 
should not be submitted to AUR in the first place. If one want to 
change the package name, they should discuss this in the comments area 
under the package details in the AURWeb.


Secondly, referring to screenshots provided before[b][c] and a link 
from their official BBS[d], the UOS AppStore operator clearly states 
that this "Universal" version is an upgrade to the old Electron one. 
Therefore, like php and postgresql, having the old "legacy" (or LTS) 
version packaged as a separate package because of the fact that it's 
still a newer version of WeChat, not something completely new which 
changed its functionality. It's still a chat client connecting to 
Tencent's private servers. On top of that, the new WeChat is still 
exclusive to the UOS operating system, requiring system files from UOS 
to login correctly. So, maintaining the old wechat-uos. This can be 
proved by the chat log from #archlinux-cn-appearance[e][f].


One thing to mention is that the original maintainer of "wechat-uos" 
has become inactive for some amount of time. It is suggested that 
granting Maintainer ownership to previously active maintainer sukanka, 
who is willing to maintain this package again. Once this is done, 
"wechat-uos-legacy" should be made and all other packages should be 
merged into "wechat-uos", solving this messed up situation.



--
Sincerely,
Kimiblock


[a]: 
https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/AUR_submission_guidelines#Rules_of_submission

[b]: https://postimg.cc/bDt46brm
[c]: https://postimg.cc/1nQbjXFP
[d]: https://bbs.chinauos.com/zh/post/17786
[e]: 
https://matrix.to/#/!UdcRVLCUPlBpwjoUET:nichi.co/$4sVFU9hV2Ex73qHo1JfLcNbKAXQ5TEoal0fQyd7yANg?via=mozilla.org=nichi.co=matrix.org

[f]: https://t.me/ArchlinuxCN_Appearance/153590

Re: About the intentionally duplicated package wechat-beta-bwrap and wechat-universal and unmaintained orginal package wechat-uos

[7Ji]

Hello Aaron,

Thank you for the reply.

> How does being unfriendly to a proprietary corporation violate the code
of conduct? It's not really a political topic, Tencent and WeChat aren't
"someone" so it does not count as a personal insult, and "respect other
... projects" only applies to FOSS stuff.

I don't think CoC only requires us to respect FOSS orgs and projects, as
stated in the CoC section about respect[e]:

> Respect other operating systems and projects
> Maligning other FOSS projects or distributions, or any other operating
systems and their users is prohibited.
> The entire Arch team is happy to volunteer their time and energy to
provide you with the Arch Linux distribution, documentation and forums. >
Kindly show respect toward the volunteers, users and communities of other
projects, distributions and operating systems as well.
> Views, experiences and opinions are always welcome, but unproductive
slander is not.

The FOSS here only limits the scope before the first comma, not after. We
should show respect towards other projects, FOSS or not. Otherwise, people
can be unproductive and bash around all those non-FOSS companies and
projects, and phrasely badly towards Nvidia, Google, Adobe, etc in any
Arch-related place, can't they? This is counter-intuitive and
counter-productive and would bring a lot trouble and flame into the
community, and this is not right.


> As a side note, packages that don't build anything and
> instead install a
> precompiled version should have a -bin suffix.

But -bin suffix is only for packages with sources available, according to
the AUR submission guidelines[a]:

> Packages that use prebuilt deliverables,
> when the sources are available, must use the -bin suffix.

WeChat is released as binary only. There's no source available for it for
general public to build from.

As a reference, other popular prebuilt-only packages exist on AUR without
the -bin suffix, e.g. typora[b], google-chrome[c], linuxqq[d], etc

[a]:
https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/AUR_submission_guidelines#Rules_of_submission
[b]: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/typora
[c]: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/google-chrome
[d]: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/linuxqq
[e]:
https://terms.archlinux.org/docs/code-of-conduct/#respect-other-operating-systems-and-projects

Yours,
Guoxin "7Ji" Pu

Re: About the intentionally duplicated package wechat-beta-bwrap and wechat-universal and unmaintained orginal package wechat-uos

[Kimiblock Moe]

Hi Aᴀʀᴏɴ,

If you test the old wechat-uos package in a sandbox (assuming you have 
a WeChat account), you'll realize that the old version is lacking a 
good amount of functions such as chat history saving and VoIP. UOS 
called the new "Universal" WeChat an "Reconstruct and Upgrade" 
("升级" is upgrade in Chinese, while "重构" is reconstruct) in 
their blog post provided by 7Ji[a] and their AppStore[b][c] which 
provided a feature list which the old version lacks. This in my point 
of view proves that the new Qt version is an upgrade to the old one, 
and the old version is just keeping there so that users who don't want 
to migrate staying on the old version just fine. (UOS is advertising 
itself "stable", after all)


I personally agree the fact that this is a small breaking update, but 
that's just users' downloaded files stored in a different place. If 
anyone wants the old version, they should package an old 
wechat-uos-legacy-bin instead of expecting wechat-uos staying on the 
old version indefinitely. It'll be more sensible if wechat-uos's 
maintainer(s) introduce a detection logic which alerts old users where 
the old data is located at.


--
Sincerely,
Kimiblock


[a]: https://bbs.chinauos.com/zh/post/17786
[b]: https://postimg.cc/bDt46brm
[c]: https://postimg.cc/1nQbjXFP

Re: About the intentionally duplicated package wechat-beta-bwrap and wechat-universal and unmaintained orginal package wechat-uos

[Aaron Liu]

Ey,

Welcome to the mailing lists! Please read and follow 
our [guidelines][1]. Specifically, try to use plain text emails.


Also, I've noticed that your PKGBUILD includes a lot of packages 
included in "base" as dependencies. Please don't do that; packages 
installed as part of "base" are part of every Arch distro. Additionally, 
packages that don't compile anything and install a precompiled binary 
instead (such as yours) should have a -bin suffix.


Firstly, may I ask what's the difference between the universal version 
`wechat` and `weixin`? If its just a newer version of WeChat, then it 
should remain the wechat-uos package name or prefix. 


As 7Ji has explained in their rather long email, "weixin" uses Electron, 
which is non-native, while "wechat" uses Qt, which is native. The latter 
is a rewrite of the former, and both are maintained.


To reduce this confusion, maybe the latter version's package should be 
named like "wechat-uos-qt" instead.


I also believe that they are keeping the old "weixin" (probably 
unmaintained) because the fact that the so called "Universal" Qt 
version doesn't port over any data from legacy Electron version
Regardless of speculation on the state of the Electron version's 
development, it is still a separate version, and people want both 
versions of the package. Therefore, I agree with 7Ji that the Electron 
and Qt versions should remain separate.


[1]:https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/General_guidelines#Mailing_lists  

--
Cheers,
Aᴀʀᴏɴ



OpenPGP_0x4E85967FC7C436BE.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key


OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: About the intentionally duplicated package wechat-beta-bwrap and wechat-universal and unmaintained orginal package wechat-uos

[Aaron Liu]

Ey,

While I agree with most of your points...

Additionally, the maintainer is ... being unfriendly to both tencent 
and WeChat, phrasing them as "trash" in the startup script[i], ... 
clearly a violation to the Arch Linux Code of Conduct[l] 
How does being unfriendly to a proprietary corporation violate the code 
of conduct? It's not really a political topic, Tencent and WeChat aren't 
"someone" so it does not count as a personal insult, and "respect other 
... projects" only applies to FOSS stuff.


I also see no reason that non-arch distro detection should be removed. 
It doesn't break any submission (or conduct) guidelines.


As a side note, packages that don't build anything and instead install a 
precompiled version should have a -bin suffix.


--
Cheers,
Aᴀʀᴏɴ



OpenPGP_0x4E85967FC7C436BE.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key


OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: About the intentionally duplicated package wechat-beta-bwrap and wechat-universal and unmaintained orginal package wechat-uos

[Kimiblock Moe]

Hi 7Ji,

Firstly, may I ask what's the difference between the universal version 
`wechat` and `weixin`? If its just a newer version of WeChat, then it 
should remain the wechat-uos package name or prefix. People from the 
#archlinux-cn group and I tested and realized that WeChat cannot run or 
login without some system files from the UOS system. Therefore it's 
still exclusive to China's UOS. Naming it "-universal" might be a 
little misleading in my opinion. I also believe that they are keeping 
the old "weixin" (probably unmaintained) because the fact that the so 
called "Universal" Qt version doesn't port over any data from legacy 
Electron version "weixin" (Chat history, Pictures, Videos etc.) Causing 
a breaking upgrade which is not ideal for a non-rolling distribution. 
It is advisable to update the original "wechat-uos" and put in a 
.install file to remind users about this breaking change using 
`post_upgrade`. Arch is always a rolling "always up-to-date" system, 
therefore it is suggested that a new package called wechat-uos-legacy 
submitted to the AUR for those who doesn't want to upgrade and 
introduce a detection logic in wechat-uos which reminds old users to 
migrate their data or install a legacy version.


I apologize about the script calling the Tencent WeChat a "trashApp". 
But it's an internal variable for debugging bubblewrap sandbox which 
was never meant to be used or seen by users. Also regarding the 
non-Arch detection logic, I don't see the any reason why not including 
it. This detection prevents the issue which appears on systems with a 
modification package "moeOS" installed, and from my knowledge it never 
broke any Arch user's installation. According to you mail reply, 
unfortunately the wechat-uos-bwrap is broken on your system. But I 
didn't see any reports from you on the AUR comments area (or maybe it's 
missed). If there's an issue with the package, please report so that I 
can improve the quality of this script.


Nevertheless, I still suggests that updating `wechat-uos` and merge all 
other "Native WeChat" packages into it, including wechat-uos-bwrap, 
wechat-beta-bwrap and wechat-universal.


--
Sincerely,
Kimiblock

Re: About the intentionally duplicated package wechat-beta-bwrap and wechat-universal and unmaintained orginal package wechat-uos

[Guoxin Pu]

Hello, I'm 7Ji, maintainer of wechat-universal-bwrap[a] (wrongly typed 
as wechat-universal in Kimiblock's original mail), and co-maintainer of 
wechat-beta-bwrap[b]. leaeasy[c], the maintainer of -beta, is my friend. 
I think it's necessary for me to clear up some misunderstanding and 
introduce the current situation of wechat builds from Tencent that's 
released on the Uniontech OS (an officially backed variant of Deepin 
Linux) appstore front that all these `wechat` packages are trying to 
"borrow" from.



For a long time, WeChat never had a native Linux build. Linux users in 
China that had to use WeChat for different reasons had to use Wine, even 
on the officially backed UOS.



On ~ late 2020, a "native" client that's built using Electron was 
released onto the UOS appstore, and into their Deb library. This package 
was named `com.tencent.weixin` in the deb library, and named `WeiXin` on 
their appstore. This is the binray release which wechat-uos[e] re-packs 
from.



On March 5th, 2024, another native client that's still in Beta testing 
was leaked to public, it was built using native Qt tech stack. This 
package was named `com.tencent.wechat` in the deb library for UOS, and 
named `Weixin (Universal)` on their appstore after it was officially 
relased on March 14th and announced on the UOS tech blog[f]



Please note that these two builds, while both released onto the UOS 
appstore and their deb library, have different deb names 
(`com.tencent.weixin` vs `com.tencent.wechat`) and different store front 
names (`Weixin` vs `Weixin (Universal)`), they're treated as different 
packages both in the deb library and in the appstore front. They're 
therefore two distinct packages, that shall be re-distributed as two 
distinct packages.



On to `wechat-universal-bwrap`,  it bears the name `wechat-universal` 
because it re-packs `com.tencent.wechat` / `Weixin (Universal)`, and 
that's the right name for the package. It has the whole commit history 
of `-beta` and was properly renamed from `wechat-beta-bwrap` in a 
commit[g]. In fact, the whole package was `-beta` renamed, and leaeasy 
agreed to me on this privately. This was re-submitted as a new package 
due to the AUR limitation that packages can't be simply renamed. But 
there's a merge request PRQ#57762[d] filed by myself immediately after 
it was submitted, and no new commits was pushed to `-beta` after the 
rename.



On to `wechat-uos`, it re-packs `com.tencent.weixin` / `Weixin` from day 
1. And as `com.tencent.weixin` / `Weixin` is still maintained in the UOS 
deb library and appstore front and would be maintained as a distince 
package from `Universal` for a long time, it should still re-pack that. 
Switching the source to `com.tencent.wechat` is irresponsible and a bad 
idea for existing users as they use completely different tech stack and 
the data is not possible to switch around losslessly between the two builds.



On to `wechat-uos-bwrap`, it should do whatever `wechat-uos` does and 
provide additional bubblewrap sandboxing, judging from the name. 
However, in reality it diverged from `wechat-uos` and switched to the 
`.wechat`/ `Universal` source, essentially being a completely different 
package not only with sandboxing differences, breaking the assumption 
that is was a tweaked `wechat-uos`. Additionally, the maintainer is both 
packing non-Arch distro detection logic[h] stuff for their moeOS, and 
being unfriendly to both tencent and WeChat, phrasing them as "trash" in 
the startup script[i], and packs broken URLs currently. This PKGBUILD 
never worked on my KDE plasama + Wayland setup, and the unfriendliness 
is clearly a violation to the Arch Linux Code of Conduct[l]



On to `wechat-beta-bwrap`, it borrowed from `-uos-bwrap` heavily for the 
first commit as leaeasy was a new beginner to write PKGBUILDs. But it 
worked from day 1 and never packed non-Arch logics, and huge rewrites 
had landed in the PKGBUILD after the initial commit. It also had a right 
name at the time it was submitted: `-beta` as it re-packs a leaked Beta 
build different from `uos`. leaeasy, the maintainer of this package, 
invited me to become the co-maintainer after I requested to add aarch64 
support, which eventually landed as commit 99160c, and I have since 
actively maintain the package. I knew there was an ongoing merge request 
from it into `-uos-bwrap` and I already replied to PRQ#57379[k] to 
explain why `-beta` should be its own package, not overtaking the 
`-uos-bwrap` name. Those reasons still apply, to why `-universal` should 
be its own package, not overtaking the `-uos` name, and `-uos` should 
not use `com.tencent.wechat` source.



So if this mess really needs to be solved, these packages should be 
handled as follows:


 - `wechat-beta-bwrap` shall be merged into `wechat-universal-bwrap`, 
completing PRQ#57762[d], effectively renaming the package. I'm the 
co-maintainer of `-beta-bwrap`, and submitter & maintainer of 
`-universal-bwrap`. The