Re: Re: [PRQ#48780] Deletion Request for mediathekview-xdg Rejected

2024-02-27 Thread arch
Sure, if you'd read one single bullet point after the one you cited: > Exception to this strict rule may only be packages having extra features > enabled and/or patches in comparison to the official ones. In such an > occasion the pkgname should be different to express that difference. Check

Re: [PRQ#48780] Deletion Request for mediathekview-xdg Rejected

2024-02-26 Thread Marcell Meszaros
Btw submitting this request was not just a "Marcell" whim, there's ample precedent. See @Muflone's deletion request against a user-submitted firefox-xdg: [PRQ#48496] (7 Oct '23) https://lists.archlinux.org/hyperkitty/list/aur-requests@lists.archlinux.org/thread/6L2R7CBSOUBVKDCLGBWHISIEUHSL2KSO

Re: [PRQ#48780] Deletion Request for mediathekview-xdg Rejected

2024-02-26 Thread Marcell Meszaros
>> Exception to this strict rule may only be packages having extra features >> enabled and/or patches in comparison to the official ones. In such an >> occasion the pkgname should be different to express that difference. > >Check and check. If you're going to cite the rules, make sure you've

Re: [PRQ#48780] Deletion Request for mediathekview-xdg Rejected

2024-02-26 Thread Marcell Meszaros
On 27 February 2024 03:48:20 GMT+01:00, not...@aur.archlinux.org wrote: >Request #48780 has been Rejected by serebit [1]: > >Personal disagreement with a particular patch is not an acceptable >reason to file a deletion request. There was nothing personal in my submission reason. What about