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: 1.98
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 »

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

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.

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