Package Details: polymc-git 1.4.0.r348.gc089f9b5-2

Git Clone URL: https://aur.archlinux.org/polymc-git.git (read-only, click to copy)
Package Base: polymc-git
Description: Minecraft launcher with ability to manage multiple instances.
Upstream URL: https://github.com/PolyMC/PolyMC
Licenses: GPL3
Conflicts: polymc
Provides: polymc
Submitter: lovetocode999
Maintainer: LennyLennington
Last Packager: Scrumplex
Votes: 12
Popularity: 2.78
First Submitted: 2021-12-28 00:24 (UTC)
Last Updated: 2022-10-15 18:08 (UTC)

Dependencies (20)

Required by (0)

Sources (2)

Pinned Comments

Scrumplex commented on 2022-07-11 08:09 (UTC) (edited on 2022-07-11 08:10 (UTC) by Scrumplex)

This package has now switched to Qt 6 instead of Qt 5. If you want to keep using Qt 5 instead, then please switch to polymc-qt5-git.

Latest Comments

1 2 3 Next › Last »

hockeymikey commented on 2022-10-21 14:13 (UTC)

@haxie Not the place but yet here you are replying and trying to claim authority. I provided plenty of justification, one should/could glance over my comments and see. You're just trying to get the last word in and take the high road, not civilly end this discussion. I guess I will, everyone can research the facts over the situation and make a judgment call for themselves and what project to use, as FOSS should be able, freedom and choice.

haxie commented on 2022-10-21 12:16 (UTC)

@hockeymikey This is not the place. The decision is final. Providing no justification for calling a community member a liar is out of order. You can claim to be unbiased, but that's not the impression you give off.

Take this elsewhere.

hockeymikey commented on 2022-10-20 15:04 (UTC)

@haxie That's what I've heard, but yet to hear more on why. People are throwing around all sorts of crazy myths such as there is "malware" in it or ever will be which is just insane claims.

All of what cafkafk said was incorrect. They are a new user which is clearly a troll account to bring drama of the situation here. He takes Lenny's comments out of context and draws his own conclusion to them. It's very much a strawman. Let's not even get into the compromised portion which is entirely wrong. He has not shown not interested in developing the project, just a different direction which is fine, and great that others wanna fork it and do their own thing. That is what FOSS is about.

It's been only a few days, neither one is at a state of being "developed". The thing about FOSS is people can choose which one works best for them. I'm not biased (which it seems like you are based on comments and how involved you are in them...) and want people to choose for themselves. Sure, if someone finds comments inflammatory or some other personal reasons, they can take that into account but I'll let the individual decide for themselves.

haxie commented on 2022-10-20 12:06 (UTC)

@hockeymikey Given the "maintainer" of the project has been banned from the AUR, this is unlikely, and as the maintainer has shown himself to be a security risk, giving control to him or someone who would do as he asks, thus violating the ban by proxy, is a no-go.

The current maintainer of this project is fine being so, as nothing has changed, but if the staff find that the upstream package is in some way compromised further, it'll be promptly deleted from the repos.

Also, none of what cafkafk said was incorrect. If you're going to assert that to be the case, I implore you to give reason for that, or not make such a foolish claim.

Finally, with regards to the user's interests at heart, if that were true, you'd be telling them to switch to the new fork, as that one is actually actively developed, Lenny's fork is not. it has no developers working on it, and the only thing he has managed to do is be inflammatory.

hockeymikey commented on 2022-10-18 16:04 (UTC)

@cafkafk Factually incorrect. It's clear you're a new user which brings up concerns about your motivations especially considering your Github too.

@Scrumplex LOC don't mean much, TBH. But either way, you're not with the project anymore and you are working on the fork rather, which is fine. I think the maintainer of the project should be given access or a third party like myself. Not that I'm a perfect maintainer, only been using Arch for a year, but I do what I can and have users interest at heart.

Scrumplex commented on 2022-10-18 08:18 (UTC)

@Vencorr: Have you looked at the commit history? The current maintainer basically didn't do anything. They were just holding the metaphorical keys.

Vencorr commented on 2022-10-18 08:12 (UTC)

@cafkafk This is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Is a project creator not allowed to take control of the very project he helped maintain and create? He got upset with his contributors, regardless of reason behind it. He has every right to decide how he wants his project maintained.

And this is far from anything hostile. If this is hostile, take off your socks and go outside.

I would consider only this AUR as compromised.

cafkafk commented on 2022-10-17 23:36 (UTC)

This package should be considered unsafe and the maintainer should be considered compromised, as should the upstream git repository.

As outlined in this complaint to github, “lennyLennington” has done a hostile takeover of the project to promote a hateful ideology.

https://gist.github.com/cafkafk/0170cc4b9dc6076122c6b2e5a7f8a78c

This also break the arch code of conduct:

https://terms.archlinux.org/docs/code-of-conduct/?rdfrom=https%3A%2F%2Fwiki.archlinux.org%2Findex.php%3Ftitle%3DCode_of_conduct%26redirect%3Dno

specifically I call attention to this section:

https://terms.archlinux.org/docs/code-of-conduct/?rdfrom=https%3A%2F%2Fwiki.archlinux.org%2Findex.php%3Ftitle%3DCode_of_conduct%26redirect%3Dno#respect-other-users

Arch Linux is a respectful, inclusive community. Anti-social or offensive behaviour will not be tolerated. Simply put, treat others as you would be treated; respect them and their views, even if you disagree with them. When you do find yourself disagreeing; counter the idea or the argument, rather than engage in ad hominem attacks.

Further, it is my understanding that he has been trying to find like minded AUR maintainers to help him get away with doing this on the projects discord.

I think these concerns need to be addressed to ensure the integrity of the code in the AUR.

TL;DR: PolyMC considered harmful due to politically motivated takeover

jopejoe1 commented on 2022-08-11 13:21 (UTC) (edited on 2022-08-11 13:25 (UTC) by jopejoe1)

Missing the following optional dependencies:

gamemode, mangohud, jprofiler, mcedit(mcedit-git,mcedit-unified)