Arch Linux User Repository

I think that inkscape and optipng should be added as make dependencies.

You are right. I totally missed it, had to look twice. I will update it now...

I just switched to the git version to include the latest fixes for Thunar 1.8 and noticed that this package is still using the old git repo.

Shouldn't it be changed to the new one at: https://github.com/NicoHood/arc-theme ?

-source=("${_pkgname}::git+https://github.com/horst3180/${_pkgname}.git")
+source=("${_pkgname}::git+https://github.com/NicoHood/${_pkgname}.git")

@Eschwartz You are totally right, it should be done earlier also on AUR. Now everything should be fine now. I will try to keep the git package in sync with the [community] package. Normally it should not change much from the packaging side.

Sorry for the delay and thanks for the reminders and feedback. Have fun with arc! :)

Well, I'm a little confused as to how this seems to have totally blindsided the previous maintainer of this package who then orphaned it in frustration. -_-

At this point in time we seem to have a couple pages worth of both styles in the AUR plus a maintainer who was driven away. So I wash my hands of it (I don't use any themes but I notice when requests like this appear: https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-requests/2018-March/023112.html )

Choose one, stick to it, merge the other in if necessary and don't keep two versions lingering around in some confusing limbo for weeks or months to trip everyone up. And people, don't spend several years debating in the comments about whether the package should be renamed. -_-

@NicoHood I had already changed the package before than it was dropped, so I think you should clone it and push it in order to upload the package again and later do the merge request from this package to that. If you requires I disown this package please let me know.

Yes it is true that I've decided to rename the package.

I've asked about which name to choose in the TU chat and the other members told me that I should not care about AUR, as "it is unsupported". I used the naming convention of the other themes[0] at that time. If I remember correct there was only one theme available, so I wanted to continue this naming convention. Users received updates of the package, as I've added a replace= flied.

You are correct that the name is not the same anymore as it was in the AUR, but nobody had any problems with the change. And I am not responsible of naming it different to the other arch themes in the first place.

So what is your problem? Are you trying to say that we should keep the AUR package name "gtk-theme-arc-git"? Are you just complaining about the [community] package name?

I personally do not care about the AUR name, I just wanted to provide a proper PKGBUILD so people understand what I mean by split package. Feel free to do the change how you think it is best.

The hint about merging is very important. Thanks.

[0] https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/GTK+#Themes

NicoHood: If we're going opinions, my opinion is that your chosen name for the community package sucks and is unintuitive...

It is hardly "wrong" of this package to have existed since long before you uploaded the community package (mid-2015 rather than the end of 2016).

It is hardly "wrong" of this package to have existed for years in which it happily coexisted with gtk-theme-arc (which I can see from https://aur.archlinux.org/cgit/aur.git/log/PKGBUILD?h=gtk-theme-arc just fine), during which your chosen pkgname did not exist (which I can see from https://aur.archlinux.org/cgit/aur.git/log/PKGBUILD?h=arc-gtk-theme not existing)

What I think happened is that you decided to upload gtk-theme-arc to community, and then did a switcharoo on the name because you thought it was better somehow. Then a while later a bunch of people started persecuting AUR maintainers for not matching their package names that existed for 3 years, to your brand-new and never-before-seen package name of 1.5 years.

...

Aside: If for whatever reason the other pkgname gets used this package needs to be merged rather than deleted, so as not to lose the 231 votes...

@NicoHood: your proposal sounds good to me.

Okay to solve this discussion I would like to suggest the following:

Since the official package is named "arc-gtk-theme" I would keep this name, and drop this old/wrong aur name. Additionally I recommend splitting the package into normal and solid mode, but within the same PKGBUILD.

I've modified the original PKGBUILD which now uses the new upstream and is packaged the same way as the non git version is packaged: https://gist.github.com/NicoHood/cc5ac89d4efbcc9be898b6135274b1c0

As I am maintaining the package in the repos and the soft fork of arc theme itself, I could also maintain the git package if you all agree. Then if any change is required for the package I could put it also in the -git version.

Tell me what you think and I will rearrange all packages. Not that this page here will then disappear and the new name is then arc-gtk-theme-git.