Package Details: bzr 2.7.0-3

Git Clone URL: (read-only, click to copy)
Package Base: bzr
Description: A decentralized revision control system (bazaar)
Upstream URL:
Keywords: eol insecure to-be-deleted unneeded
Licenses: GPL
Submitter: alucryd
Maintainer: None
Last Packager: MarsSeed
Votes: 0
Popularity: 0.000000
First Submitted: 2020-02-08 11:16 (UTC)
Last Updated: 2022-07-02 21:52 (UTC)

Latest Comments

a821 commented on 2022-07-04 09:11 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for restoring. Don't worry about it.

I suppose there will be a time when this PKGBUILD will be unrepairable, then file a deletion request.

It's good that you are trying to remove old/deprecated software of the AUR, but the fact that a program is old does not mean that is should be immediately deleted. Old software still works fine sometimes. This has been stated many times by TUs in the past. And IMO, the PKGBUILD maintainer should do their best to keep the package working regardless of the deprecation status (destroying the PKGBUILD did not sit well with me)

Respect to the intentions of the other user, I generally try to assume good faith and he might have simply had a strong reaction to you "vandalizing" (*) the PKGBUILD. To be honest, I was also angry about it so that's why I left the first message. (I'm speaking from what I saw in the mailing list, I have no idea if you have a feud with him)

And always reach out the community in the forums/mailing list/IRC if you are unsure about your actions, specially if someone calls you on them; you might be actually wrong.

(*) I later realized that "vandalizing" might have been too strong of a word (is there a better one?) because it assumes malice, and I guess you had good intentions, but remember: the road the hell...

MarsSeed commented on 2022-07-02 23:49 (UTC)


@a821, thank you for bringing this matter to my attention, and for explaining your point of view. I've understood it, and I can accept that my action was wrong.

I am sorry that I initially supposed that your stance and attitude is equal to that of @FabioLolix. Now it is clear to me that I was mistaken about that, and I am glad that you treated me like a fellow human being. I appreciate that.

I can see reason and respond well to it. I can be convinced by logical and well-founded arguments, like yours were.

I welcome it if I am given the benefit of the doubt, even if someone has a basis for thinking that I am in error (which I very well can be, as any human can). Thank you for reaching out to me in accordance to that.

In complete opposition to your approach, @FabioLolix wrote with contempt and condescension towards me, and defamed me in front of everyone on the AUR mailing list behind my back - being fully aware that I was not yet a member so I do not receive it. His action was not in good faith to actually initiate betterment, or else he would have contacted me directly via email, which is public to AUR members, or by leaving a comment on this page. But he just wanted to harm me socially, to undermine my standing in this community.

I do not want to cause damage, neither to people nor to technical systems, and I especially do not want to attack anyone personally, like @FabioLolix or some other members on AUR seems to enjoy doing, wallowing in their toxic superiority complex. This is antisocial behavior they engage in, such that I cannot condone nor do I want to follow or reciprocate. This undermines the social cohesion and members' willingness to be cooperative and helpful.

If you ask me, any healthy community should address and sanction such behavior, by calling out those acts and affirming that this kind of communication is wrong and not acceptable, instead of giving space to that by being a silent bystander, or worse, by conveying implied or explicit moral support for these malicious forms of self-expressions.

I haven't lost hope in the Arch community yet, though my faith in it took some beating during the last 6 months of being an active participant.

Thank you for setting a good example and for voicing your opinion in a respectful manner.


Marcell (@MarsSeed)

a821 commented on 2022-06-30 11:45 (UTC)

If you think the TU was mistaken, then please bring the discussion to other TUs or the aur-general mailing list. Sure, the software was deprecated long ago, we both agree on that, but my problem is that there was really no reason to erase the whole PKGBUILD when a simple pinned comment (or a comment in the PKGBUILD itself or in the .install file) would've done the same think.

I definitely think this is vandalizing (and so does the user that posted in the mailing this (It wasn't me btw)), or at least it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

MarsSeed commented on 2022-06-30 09:57 (UTC)

TU was mistaken. This was not useful to anyone at that point. EOLed upstream in 2017, dropped from repos in 2020. Has been an orphan for the last two years.

There are some Python 2 based extensions and frontends to this. I've tried them all, and none of them worked. All were discontinued between 5 to 9 years ago.

And this is not about vandalizing. This is useful to inform any remaining user, if there is someone, that this package is obsolete and they should not be using it. Python 2 is EOL since July 2020 and doesn't even receive security fixes, so it should not be used for network communication, authentication, etc. - all of which is required for a VCS client.

This update will prove my point that this package is not useful to anyone, because no one is using it, or if they do, they should not.

The CLI API of its replacement, breezy, is compatible with this one. So downstream extensions that use bzr's public CLI interface should work with breezy. Only those few extensions are defunct which used the not-intended-for-library-use Python 2 based module names in bzr which are broken. Those packages have been orphans for years or haven't been updated on AUR in at least 5 years. And their functionalities have been replaced by newer solutions for breezy, most of them directly integrated into that new CLI client, or added in the form of breezy being capable of using optional depends, like python-dulwich for a git bridge etc.

Please do the research first before accusing me of vandalizing something.

a821 commented on 2022-06-30 09:26 (UTC)

Whether I need this or not is irrelevant. The point is that you should not vandalize the PKGBUILD. A TU already rejected your deletion request for this [1] because it could be still useful for some people (now this package is completely useless). You could have simply leave a pinned comment and submit another deletion request some time later. I really see no point in doing this.


MarsSeed commented on 2022-06-30 08:38 (UTC)

Why? Do you still need to use the Python 2 based bzr, replaced by repo's breezy?

a821 commented on 2022-06-30 05:06 (UTC)

Please revert the last commit: