Package Details: wechat-bin 4.0.1.11-2

Git Clone URL: https://aur.archlinux.org/wechat-bin.git (read-only, click to copy)
Package Base: wechat-bin
Description: 微信是一种生活方式. This is a repackage of WeChat.
Upstream URL: https://weixin.qq.com/
Keywords: qt universal wechat
Licenses: LicenseRef-Proprietary
Submitter: Kimiblock
Maintainer: Kimiblock
Last Packager: Kimiblock
Votes: 3
Popularity: 1.72
First Submitted: 2024-12-31 17:32 (UTC)
Last Updated: 2025-01-01 15:42 (UTC)

Dependencies (38)

Required by (1)

Sources (3)

Latest Comments

« First ‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 Next › Last »

lucifei commented on 2025-01-06 14:36 (UTC)

I am just an ordinary Arch user, but now the wechat package can no longer be upgraded normally, so I chose to go to github to support the unofficial wechat-bin. In addition, this is the first time I do this. WeChat is really important to Chinese users, please ask the maintainer to fix it quickly.If similar things happen again, I will give up using Arch.

cangzhu commented on 2025-01-06 11:29 (UTC)

不用纠结，官方AppImage一样用，没啥区别，方便还不用搞那么多依赖

Kimiblock commented on 2025-01-06 06:01 (UTC)

You can see https://aur.archlinux.org/cgit/aur.git/commit/?h=wechat-bin&id=0014ff2c8d14b85340e4c0eaa107732f6e94d1d8.

Downgrading will certainly break things. Either you have messed something up or not cloned the latest PKGBUILD

zllr commented on 2025-01-06 05:40 (UTC)

从 4.0.1.11-1 更新到了 4.0.1.11-2，无法启动微信，没有/usr/bin/wechat 程序，降级至4.0.1.11-1可恢复；评论区只看到了争吵，没人关心如何解决问题？

zacari commented on 2025-01-04 08:25 (UTC)

Someone in the mailing list wrote:

it's quite sus that such great effort was taken just for the sake of being a maintainer (which is a non-paid volunteer role) of some package. i think some sort of security audit should take place to fully clarify this situation, because such pattern strongly remind some sort of social engineering hack attempt, for example for including some unwanted payload to one of "concurrenting" package

pr0m1x commented on 2025-01-03 13:36 (UTC)

A coalition of monopolists and dictators, GOOD JOB!!!

duguyipiao commented on 2025-01-02 02:18 (UTC) (edited on 2025-01-02 15:22 (UTC) by duguyipiao)

@Keep-Silence An alternative way is provided here: https://github.com/devome/wechat-bin?tab=readme-ov-file#1-%E6%8E%A8%E8%8D%90%E4%BD%BF%E7%94%A8-paru

@pm3843 I can understand that you are trying to avoid the splitting of the community, but someone does not care. They is just making more and more mistakes trying to justify their wrong decision.

JoveYu commented on 2025-01-02 02:09 (UTC)

这场闹剧也该结束了，无论是wechat还是wechat-bin都没有关系，只希望@Kimiblock自娱自乐的时候不要影响其他包正常使用。

This farce should end. It doesn’t matter whether it is wechat or wechat-bin. I just hope that when @Kimiblock enjoying himself, he won’t affect other packages.

Keep-Silence commented on 2025-01-02 01:13 (UTC) (edited on 2025-01-02 01:22 (UTC) by Keep-Silence)

@pm3843 君子坦荡荡，小人长戚戚

不用做这些无意义的争执了。 PM（@Muflone）只想结束这场闹剧。他不在乎wechat-bin和wechat的区别。他已经认可了@Kimiblock的做法。 如果你个人想要一个纯净版的wechat-bin，使用历史PKGBUILD自己安装。或者等这个包孤儿接手维护。 没别的了

There is no point in making these meaningless struggles. PM (@Muflone) just wants to end this farce. He doesn't care about the difference between wechat-bin and wechat. He has already approved of what @Kimiblock did. If you personally want a pure version of wechat-bin, use the historical PKGBUILD to install it yourself.Or wait for this package orphan to take over maintenance. Nothing else

Muflone commented on 2025-01-01 22:39 (UTC)

Still only a minor issue (in the upstream desktop file) was reported and it was promptly fixed in less than one day.

All the rest is noise, with zero technical arguments. The past history is irrelevant, only the current package counts and Kimiblock has quickly fixed all the reported issues.

Now you have wechat and wechat-bin and I cannot read even a single technical issue to solve.

Stop this useless spam and provide valid reports if any, or else keep your personal PKGBUILD elsewhere if you don't want to use this package. Stop asking for maintainer change, this won't happen until there are SERIOUS issues or prolonged maintainer absence

« First ‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 Next › Last »