Search Criteria
Package Details: libelectron-electron-meta 38-1
Package Actions
| Git Clone URL: | https://aur.archlinux.org/libelectron-electron-meta.git (read-only, click to copy) |
|---|---|
| Package Base: | libelectron-electron-meta |
| Description: | A meta package for setting and controlling the electron versioning for LibElectron packages |
| Upstream URL: | None |
| Licenses: | GPL |
| Submitter: | gameslayer |
| Maintainer: | gameslayer |
| Last Packager: | gameslayer |
| Votes: | 5 |
| Popularity: | 4.11 |
| First Submitted: | 2025-06-14 07:17 (UTC) |
| Last Updated: | 2025-09-20 02:21 (UTC) |
Latest Comments
1 2 3 Next › Last »
CobaCreamSoda commented on 2025-09-23 05:29 (UTC)
@Nienter Your support is always appreciated!
gameslayer commented on 2025-09-23 05:28 (UTC) (edited on 2025-09-23 05:29 (UTC) by gameslayer)
Yeah community support! yeah nah we wont go! 🇦🇺
Nienter commented on 2025-09-23 05:25 (UTC)
If I could, I'd submit a 'keep' request on your behalf.
gameslayer commented on 2025-09-21 07:16 (UTC) (edited on 2025-09-21 07:25 (UTC) by gameslayer)
Most packages are in the electron packages and wouldn't need to while also will juggle and balance electron versions per app while I have a whole bunch of apps that rely on libelectron to control and maintain quality and stability as a AUR package and avoid issues.
Removing my package and causing a lot of problems for users and myself isn't justification, its just a childish nuclear option.. thank for the suggestion but my packages are fine and I am keeping it as it is, please remove the request.
This is gross abuse of power
CobaCreamSoda commented on 2025-09-21 07:15 (UTC)
Imagine harassing people and deleting their shit for essentially no reason because you could care less about the amount of work this man has put into maintaining these packages. Regardless of your reasoning, this is gross conduct.
oech3 commented on 2025-09-21 07:08 (UTC)
Imagine if every dev of Electron, CEF, started same things for every app and how many empty packages fill AUR for same package it slef is not useful.
This is something should be avoided.
gameslayer commented on 2025-09-21 07:02 (UTC)
The reason libelectron-electron-meta exists is so I can control what versions my software uses, if there is any issues I can easily upgrade or rollback the version if anything goes wrong and I am free to do so because these my MY packages.
Again doesn't justify you assuming things and removing my packages because I have done nothing wrong nor have I broken any rules and all started from your assumption on something that wasn't even correct, now your just desperately trying to move the goal posts to find a reason to remove my package when again I don't have to do anything nor is there any reason for it to be removed
I have tried to be nice but you have been nothing but rude and threatening to my software and work when your reasoning doesn't require a package removal
oech3 commented on 2025-09-21 06:56 (UTC)
This itself is alias for existing package.
gameslayer commented on 2025-09-21 06:54 (UTC)
That doesn't mean just straight up removing packages! I can easily add depends=(electron*) to both but again you decide to go nuclear and just remove packages for no reason and assuming libelectron and this package is a duplicate
oech3 commented on 2025-09-21 06:51 (UTC)
Since official package is versioned for ABI compability, electroncastlab-bin needs provides=(electron*). Empty pkg should be avoided as much as possible.
1 2 3 Next › Last »