Arch Linux User Repository

@xavierbaez Why are you manually editing .SRCINFO to hide the actual source link that the PKGBUILD is using? 7990731

Why did you delete the original maintainer/contributer from the PKGBUILD? 4c5cc10

@MarsSeed followed your suggestion

@muflone insults in comments as well

for 3 years this was working fine but I added a dot instead of a colon probably a typo in keyboard

Passive agressive, like I don't know what chown command does. Even link to chown page, ridiculizing, that was not funny. Does he really need to put a link to chown man page.

comment-932059

Sorry for accidental double-posting. I was confused.

If I may ask, please kindly unpin the huge number of pinned comments, because they flood out the actual latest comments, making them hard to spot.

And another suggestion: please don't panic, your package is safe on AUR. Don't panic-post and panic-submit deletion requests and orphan requests. If you are experiencing hostile action by someone else, please reach out to a Trusted User or to the aur-general mailing list, calmly explaining the situation.

Hi @xavierbaez,

I would just like to point out to you that you should increase the pkgrel by +1 if you make a change in PKGBUILD without changing the pkgver, if you want to ensure that users get the updated PKGBUILD.

If you don't do that, then those who already have an earlier cache of the PKGBUILD will use that in case they rebuild/reinstall this package locally, whereas others who happen to download the PKGBUILD for the first time now will build the current variant of it.

Therefore it is not at all a good practice to publish changes to the PKGBUILD without changing either the pkgver or pkgrel.

(An exception may be when you change some inconsequential comment in the PKGBUILD.)

I mean /etc/pacman.conf

@muflone I added the https://downloads.motivewave.com/builds/{$build_id}/motivewave{$pkgver}_amd64.deb and changed the scammer for duplicate it still conflicts though I had to add the duplicate to pacman.conf IgnorePkg

@muflone why this guy filed a code review - orphan request. It was all fine until yesterday he filed an orphan request out of nowhere. Saturday when I was relaxing with the kiddos 👶🏾 We were preparing to go to a funeral today and I get bugged about code review. I have read the Arch readme and it says makepkg is done because code can be malicious. Anyway it was building fine like @MarsSeed commented on 08-26.

I added the deb like MarsSeed suggested but that’s a good idea 👍🏼 Since not users might have the payment for the other versions. I pay every year to MotiveWave to get all updates. That’s a great idea thank you. I’ll push the build after I return from church.

@xaviewbaez

1. please don't use AUR comments like a chat, there are pages full with your comments and your questions only, use comments only for relevant updates or to answer to your users questions

2. please don't publish old news as you done on 2023-08-26

3. please fix the upstream link as MarsSeed pointed you on 2023-08-25, the currently valid link is https://downloads.motivewave.com/builds/{$build_id}/motivewave{$pkgver}_amd64.deb At the actual stage is impossible to revert to a previous version and the package will fail whenever the software is updated

4. are you sure your users need so much unrelated and unuseful pinned comments? unpin the old and not useful comments, please

5. remove immediately $pkgname_scammer in your PKGBUILD and stop childish behavior. the package doesn't need to conflict with the other package and you never call anyone else scammer again in the AUR. I won't cancel the orphan request until this point is solved

@xiota

1. please avoid aggressive answers like https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/motivewave?O=10#comment-932071

2. if the package has issues, please write your comments to the maintainer and try to help him in fixing the issues