[aur-requests] [PRQ#22879] Deletion Request for pipewire-nightly

[Haochen Tong]

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