Update [4] On Thu, Jan 2, 2025 at 9:57 AM S Umple <[email protected]> wrote:
> Recently there's been a debacle about the wechat packaging in AUR. > Essentially there were two competing packages wechat and wechat-bin [1] > which are both popular. Package maintainer K(type user in AUR) of wechat > took unbelievable measures to try to get rid of wechat-bin from AUR to > begin with and was rebuked[6] by a PM A(type "Package Maintainer" in AUR). > But eventually the same maintainer K succeeded when another PM M(type > "Package Maintainer" in AUR) sided with him and took control of wechat-bin > with a total revamp of the packaging. > > Package maintainer K's actions are bizarre, hostile and malicious overall. > There's absolutely no reasonable explanation as to why K had to take over > the control except for the guideline which is flawed. Plenty of users > submitted their negative views[2] towards such takeover. And it's also my > observation that PM M did not do due diligence on this matter and just > arbitrarily made a decision suppressing users' voice in the meantime. > > The situation got worse under PM M's dealing with this matter that users > feel ignored and betrayed that many **wrong** deletion requests[3] have > been filed towards both wechat and wechat-bin, presumably by angry and > frustrated users from both camps. > > The chilling effect can also be seen here[5] when the most upvoted wechat > related package is discussing a backup plan in case the same thing happens > to it and the possibility of retreating to github, when one PM dictates the > course of action and there's no way to appeal. > > If we also look at the roles PMs play in this debacle, it also draws ire > from K. K is not happy when his attempt was denied by PM A either. > https://blog.kimiblock.top/2024/12/08/do-not-waste-time-on-aur/ > https://blog.kimiblock.top/2024/08/23/aur-moderation/ > > The questions are: > 1. Is there enough room for more than one packaging in AUR or does it have > to favor the first package maintainer in system log?[1] What's wrong with > choices letting vote/popularity work and users the freedom to choose? > 2. What can we do about it when the package maintainer ignores legitimate > technical issues and won't budge until after a PM steps in and orders such? > [4] > 3. What can we do about it when one PM takes over, calling shots and > suppressing users' voices? Is there an appeal process? > > [1] > wechat started on 6/30/2024 with an essentially nil placeholder commit. > Actual and meaningful commits started on 11/5/2024 with nothing in between. > https://aur.archlinux.org/cgit/aur.git/log/?h=wechat&ofs=50 > > wechat-bin started on 11/5/2024 > https://aur.archlinux.org/cgit/aur.git/log/?h=wechat-bin > > As such wechat has a earlier start date in the system than wechat-bin. > Yet if we look into the detail by no means can K claimed that his package > arrived first in the repo. > PM A expressed[6] his doubt towards K's legitimacy in his response to K's > attempt. Quote "Claiming legitimacy over the other existing packages in a > forced and unexpected manner like you're doing is not helpful." > I'm a wechat-bin user and am sure it collected 50+ votes and not sure > about wechat which currently also tallies 50 votes. > That said, if anything, both packages have the support and deserve to stay > instead of merging them in a haste. > > [2] > Most comments can be found under packages' comment page > https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/wechat-bin > https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/wechat > > Select negative user comments towards K: > ernest https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/wechat#comment-1004581 > etoyz https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/wechat#comment-1004579 > timefaker https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/wechat#comment-1004546 > JoveYu https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/wechat#comment-1004540 > envolution https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/wechat?O=30#comment-1003718 > pr0m1x https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/wechat?O=40#comment-1003602 > wszqkzqk https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/wechat?O=40#comment-1002784 > Keep-Silence https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/wechat-bin#comment-1004718 > JoveYu https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/wechat-bin#comment-1004832 > duguyipiao https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/wechat-bin#comment-1004833 > > [3] > https://lists.archlinux.org/archives/search?q=wechat&page=1&mlist=aur-requests%40lists.archlinux.org&sort=date-desc > > [4] After K's takeover, packaging quality took a dive and won't even > launch properly. User provided feedback and K simply cited his deal with PM > M to provide only vanilla packaging and won't budge, until M stepped in and > ordered K to correct such and K complied. It's noticeable that PM M chose > to ignore this important attitude detail that K has shown towards this > package and simply summarized it as "Still only a minor issue (in the > upstream desktop file) was reported and it was promptly fixed in less than > one day." This kind of sweeping-it-under-the-rug approach is very much > problematic and troublesome. This brings into question PM M's capability in > fairly addressing inquiries. PM M had this to say "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." as if M owns this > community https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/wechat-bin#comment-1004808 > and opposition are just spammer and the only option is to flee. I'm pretty > sure that's against the value of OSS and M does not repesent the overall PM > group and just an isolated case. > > [5] > https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/wechat-universal-bwrap#comment-1004422 > > [6] PM A had this to say in rebuke to maintainer K, quote > "This indeed is an inappropriate usage of the "replaces" array. This > should be a "conflicts" array at best. > As you know (since you started the related discussion on the ML), the > "wechat packaging situation" in the AUR is a bit controversial and > difficult to deal with. > Claiming legitimacy over the other existing packages in a forced and > unexpected manner like you're doing is not helpful. > I switched the "replaces" array to a "conflicts" one, please do not switch > it back and give time for the AUR staff to deal with the pending requests > about wechat related packages. > Thanks for your comprehension & collaboration." > https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/wechat?O=50#comment-1001449 >
