Package Details: popular-packages 0.3.2-1

Git Clone URL: (read-only)
Package Base: popular-packages
Description: Lists popular packages not installed
Upstream URL:
Licenses: GPL3
Submitter: Xavion
Maintainer: Xavion
Last Packager: Xavion
Votes: 18
Popularity: 0.017279
First Submitted: 2011-03-10 04:23
Last Updated: 2015-06-08 23:45

Dependencies (4)

Required by (0)

Sources (1)

Latest Comments

Xavion commented on 2012-12-18 08:17

As I'm the author of this little script, I will always want it to remain in the AUR.

Xavion commented on 2012-12-18 08:16

I still disagree that there's a need to host this script outside of the tarball. Nonetheless, I have made the change as requested to prevent any further crying.

My next comment is a repeat of a previous one, which has been deleted from here by TUs twice so far. Let's hope they don't feel the need to do so a third time.

keenerd commented on 2012-12-17 17:20

Xavion: My apologies for disowning your package, the AUR does not let us re-assign the original maintainer. Please re-adopt the package.

You were asked multiple times to host the source on an external site. I have fixed this, most likely not to your satisfaction. You have 30 days to find a better host before deletes it.

I see one of your projects is hosted on google code, so this is not an entirely alien concept to you.

Xavion commented on 2012-12-14 06:31

As I'm the author of this little script, I will always want this package to remain in the AUR.

xyproto commented on 2012-12-13 22:52

Removing all the comments, as they don't really add anything to the information about the package.

xyproto commented on 2012-12-13 22:50

Your "well and truly qualified" statement is meaningless, unless you are aware of the qualifications of the people you talk to here, which I assume you are not. It's also offtopic.


Xavion commented on 2012-12-12 22:42

I don't think you'll be able to convince me that I should want to make this change. My opinion is that it's an isolated non-issue that has virtually zero impact on the system. For the record, I am well and truly qualified to make this judgement.

As noted below, I will make the change once you've informed me that the wording on the ArchWiki has been modified. The alternative is to tell me what the consequence will be if I don't do what you're asking. If it's severe enough, I will comply with your request.

xyproto commented on 2012-12-11 21:39

No need to insult. I'm saying that I want you to want to make this change, seeing that it makes the whole system better.

Xavion commented on 2012-12-11 20:57

Man, you guys just won't quit on this non-issue. It's like you haven't got anything better to do with your time.

Let me know once you've changed the wording on the ArchWiki. Also, are you saying that I *must* make this change?

xyproto commented on 2012-12-11 11:06

Ok, if that doesn't sway you, how about uploading it to github and use that for hosting? That way, you'll also have an issue tracker and an easy way for people to submit patches. Even if the Arch Wiki doesn't specifically mention bash scripts, the general consensus is that unless they are related to building and packaging the contents, they don't really belong in the source package. I'll see if I can update the wiki to say so.

Putting the script on github will give you an issue tracker. As a bonus, people who have used Arch for years will nod approvingly to your PKGBUILD.

I think it's a nice little script, btw.

All comments