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 »

pm3843 commented on 2025-01-01 22:26 (UTC) (edited on 2025-01-01 22:39 (UTC) by pm3843)

@Muflone

what Antiz changed and written was the abuse of replaces. The new package has zero replaces nor conflicts, so there's nothing to change here.

Please read again Antiz's note.

This is lame. wechat-bin changes hand and that renders replaces/conflicts unnecessary. Wouldn't you say?

What is the compelling reason that Kimiblock had to take over this package instead of just minding the one he already manages? The flawed AUR guideline as demonstrated in this case that there can be no duplicate package? Just look at the discussion page of AUR wiki page and see how many issues are there pending and let's start a conversation and add this to the list. Essentially the guideline safeguards the first maintainer to a unreasonable extent and if users don't like it users have no choice but to swallow it. wechat-bin garnered +50 votes in about the same time period as wechat did and those votes should just be tossed away because the current flawed guideline says so? If you look at the same guideline there's little rules imposed on PM that when PM like Kimiblock misbehaves there's little to nothing users can do.

What is this your discussion for? What is the benefit? What you reported as broken?

To allow voices be heard and not let guidelines be geared towards first maintainer who happens to first grab the name of a package. What's wrong with duplicate packages when there's vote and popularity mechanism out there and users are free to choose whatever they want?

As far I can read: nothing, only personal dislike towards Kimiblock.

You need to spend more time on this.

  1. His action speaks for himself. He packaged this in an inferior way and upon feedback by users that application cannot be started he just quoted the BS vanilla. Seriously? If you were not present we can all rest assured that he'd let this rot as is.

  2. He made the replace/conflict change.

  3. He requested the deletion of other package in rival with his.

  4. Read all the linked feedback/comment by AUR community users about their opinion on this matter.

All indication points to power grip of this maintainer and these are unacceptable things happening in too short a time frame to be excused. This maintainer at the minimum should be granted a timeout.

Anyhow you seem to have your mind set, so be it. Life goes on. Happy new year.

My final proposal:

1.1 Strip Kimiblock from wechat-bin, allow the original maintainers to take it back;

1.2 Or allow original maintainers to take a new name and not to be considered duplicate and rejected. There's enough room for two.

2.0 Let users' opinion be heard and not ignored/suppressed.

Muflone commented on 2025-01-01 18:49 (UTC)

@pm3843 what Antiz changed and written was the abuse of replaces.

The new package has zero replaces nor conflicts, soo there's nothing to change here.

What is this your discussion for? What is the benefit? What you reported as broken?

As far I can read: nothing, only personal dislike towards Kimiblock.

Until objective reasons are raised and the refusal from Kimiblock to fix them happen, this package will remain and there will not be allowed duplicated packages.

pm3843 commented on 2025-01-01 18:09 (UTC) (edited on 2025-01-01 18:46 (UTC) by pm3843)

@Muflone Could you read this comment by another PM @Antiz? This PM even took the extra step of stepping in and intervened here and here by reverting Kimiblock's change. This should not be taken lightly and is the common sense way to deal with the situation regardless of how subjective minds interpret the AUR guidelines.

The way @Kimiblock has acted so far(unwillingness to improve/collaborate, malicious takeover of other packages) has a chilling effect on the AUR community, folks are taking notice and frankly his action has cost him his entire credibility with me and most likely the 50+ users who voted for this package in the past. Just look at the most upvoted wechat package comment section they are preparing in the case of a hostile take over they'd need to retreat to github.

Best solution at the moment, echoed by following users: Let the users vote on whatever package they choose to use and free wechat-bin from Kimiblock.

ernest etoyz timefaker JoveYu envolution pr0m1x wszqkzqk Keep-Silence

Kimiblock commented on 2025-01-01 15:43 (UTC)

@Muflone Okay, that should be fixed now

Muflone commented on 2025-01-01 15:09 (UTC)

@Kimiblock fixing the desktop file to make it to launch wechat from wechat-bin is a fix to do and cannot be considered a modified vanilla version

Muflone commented on 2025-01-01 15:02 (UTC)

@Keep-Silence

If you have some valid and meaningful issues with wechat-bin expose them to Kimiblock with documentation which proves your issues

Many of you asked a pure wechat-bin package with no extra customization and now you have it. The name of the maintainer is not relevant in any way and the package seems to me valid to be kept

Collaborate with the maintainer to keep this package in a good way.

Invalid requests with meaningless reason will be deleted, duplicated packages will be deleted. Any abuse will be sanctioned

Keep-Silence commented on 2025-01-01 12:39 (UTC)

在此。我给PM（Muflone）的建议是由Kimiblock维护wechat，由devome（已删号）、Wimpy、Rsplwe维护wechat-bin。让AUR用户自行选择使用。但PM（Muflone）并没有采纳 ，或许有他自己的想法吧。但这样下去还是一样没完没了。 不过就算这样分开维护，也会有鬼申请删除wechat-bin。 所以要么选择妥协使用wechat-universal-bwrap。 不过也可能会有鬼申请删除wechat-universal-bwrap（目前有已申请删除但未成功）。

Here. My suggestion to PM (Muflone) is that Kimiblock maintains wechat, and devome (deleted account), Wimpy, and Rsplwe maintain wechat-bin. Let AUR users choose to use it. But PM (Muflone) did not adopt it, maybe he has his own ideas. But it will never end if it goes on like this. However, even if it is maintained separately, there will be ghosts who apply to delete wechat-bin. So either choose to compromise and use wechat-universal-bwrap. However, there may also be ghosts who apply to delete wechat-universal-bwrap (currently, some have applied for deletion but failed).

pm3843 commented on 2025-01-01 09:41 (UTC)

@Kimiblock

The original wechat-bin has over 50 votes. It's significant please respect that.

pm3843 commented on 2025-01-01 09:30 (UTC)

@Kimiblock

Another PM(Antiz) rebuked you before here https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/wechat?O=50#comment-1001449 so it's not one sided, ok? Is the backlash not enough that you have to continue this trend? It's unfortunate that it started but it doesn't have to like this.

Kimiblock commented on 2025-01-01 09:18 (UTC) (edited on 2025-01-01 09:20 (UTC) by Kimiblock)

@pm3843 Me and a PM (Muflone) is currently trying to resolve this mess. This pkgbase is intended to stop the war of duplication and flooding. I do not modify the official package in any way, shape or form (so zero modification). The desktop file it self comes from the deb package and is already broken.

As for the dependencies, those are given by namcap and should not be easily removed when the app actually references it.

The guidelines has always had the no duplication line. I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

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