Search Criteria
Package Details: qtcreator-src 8.0.1-1
| Git Clone URL: | https://aur.archlinux.org/qtcreator-src.git (read-only, click to copy) |
|---|---|
| Package Base: | qtcreator-src |
| Description: | Source code of Qt Creator IDE needed to build plugins |
| Upstream URL: | https://www.qt.io |
| Licenses: | LGPL |
| Submitter: | felixzero |
| Maintainer: | trollixx |
| Last Packager: | trollixx |
| Votes: | 14 |
| Popularity: | 0.000000 |
| First Submitted: | 2011-09-25 21:38 (UTC) |
| Last Updated: | 2022-10-02 17:32 (UTC) |
Dependencies (0)
Required by (12)
- qtcreator-cppcheck-plugin-git (make)
- qtcreator-doxygen (make)
- qtcreator-gitqlient-plugin-git (make)
- qtcreator-markview-plugin (make)
- qtcreator-markview-plugin-git (make)
- qtcreator-meson-plugin-git (make)
- qtcreator-plugin-csd-git (make)
- qtcreator-plugin-icontheme-git (make)
- qtcreator-plugin-layoutsupport-git (make)
- qtcreator-plugin-minimap-git (make)
- qtcreator-plugin-onedark-git (make)
- qtcreator-plugin-tabs-git (make)
Latest Comments
1 2 3 Next › Last »
Ashark commented on 2023-12-12 23:24 (UTC)
I have previously closed a duplicated request PRQ#46526, because the MarsSeed's one was open at the moment. I dont think making another one is better than reopening previous one.
@MarsSeed, as you adopted some of the packages dependent on qtcreator-src, you could already process them.
xiota commented on 2023-12-12 23:17 (UTC) (edited on 2023-12-12 23:21 (UTC) by xiota)
@Ashark TU/PM already rejected the previous request. Reopening it without change in context will not be considered favorably. The best course of action would be to address issues with the other packages first. But you're free to do as you like and open the request yourself.
Deleting this package first will make finding the other packages more difficult, which will result in their staying broken for longer.
Ashark commented on 2023-12-12 21:51 (UTC)
@xiota, no, it is not always the rule. There are aur packages with "red" dependencies - meaning their dependency got deleted (or never existed in aur).
With deleting this package, it will be immediately clear in the other packages that they need intervention.
xiota commented on 2023-12-12 21:43 (UTC) (edited on 2023-12-12 21:43 (UTC) by xiota)
@Ashark Issues with the other packages need to be resolved first.
Ashark commented on 2023-12-12 10:43 (UTC)
This is not a valid reason. The other packages should be updated or deleted as well. Can you reopen your request?
MarsSeed commented on 2023-12-12 10:40 (UTC) (edited on 2023-12-12 10:43 (UTC) by MarsSeed)
Because recently there were up to 3200+ backlogged requests, with their listing on AURweb spanning ~65 pages, and going back up to 4 months ago.
(At the moment, there are still 2600+ pending requests on 53 pages.)
On top of that, Package Maintainer @muflone made the decision on Dec 3 to reject my deletion request PRQ#46169 from Aug 13, with the stated reason:
Ashark commented on 2023-12-12 09:49 (UTC)
@MarsSeed Why the arch maintainers take so long time to process deletion requests?
MarsSeed commented on 2023-12-12 07:45 (UTC)
@Eeems, this package should be deleted, and all current reverse dependencies as well, the latter of which are all EOL since long ago and only support Qt Creator 4.x but not higher.
Please kindly use repo's qtcreator-devel for building plugins and addons that support the current version of Qt Creator.
Eeems commented on 2023-12-12 06:52 (UTC)
@trollixx Are you intending to update this to the latest version, or to orphan the package?
MarsSeed commented on 2023-12-04 21:25 (UTC)
@trollix, please kindly help out by submitting this for deletion.
All current AUR reverse dependencies are discontinued, broken plugins from years ago, supporting Qt Creator 4.x but not newer.
I've had deletion requests for all of them, submitted 2-3 months ago, but since AUR PM's are overburdened with thousands of pending requests and these ones still haven't got answered, I've revoked them (along with ~200 no-impact requests of mine), to be resubmitted later in the future, when there's a smaller backlog.
But this one package would better be deleted on priority (submitted by you, as its maintainer), because its existence has the capacity to confuse people, but is not usable or used in any way.
Thank you in advance if you do indeed choose to request a deletion for this.
1 2 3 Next › Last »