search

dtgm / chocolatey-packages

chocolateynuget packages published on chocolatey.org
https://chocolatey.org/profiles/dtgm
Apache License 2.0
48 stars 110 forks source link

multimonitortool - Migrate package maintenance #620

Closed brogers5 closed 1 year ago

brogers5 commented 2 years ago

Per https://github.com/chocolatey-community/chocolatey-package-requests/issues/1195, I've picked up maintenance of this package.

Removing from this repository, as the package is now being maintained at brogers5/chocolatey-package-multimonitortool.

gep13 commented 2 years ago

@brogers5 thank you for taking the time to raise this PR and for maintaining this package!

Can you update this PR to not include the deletion of the .png file? We leave it in place in this repository so that older package versions still have a valid iconUrl.

Thanks!

brogers5 commented 2 years ago

@gep13, the legacy iconUrl (for reference, https://cdn.rawgit.com/dtgm/chocolatey-packages/2697586f564894b3346352497da46f320a02e725/icons/multimonitortool.png) is referring to the file's state as of a specific commit hash.

My understanding is that so long as the original commit remains as-is in this repository, the legacy iconUrl should remain valid, regardless of the file's current state in master. Based on a quick search, I'm finding this is true even for deleted files.

Example legacy icon URL for Telegram: https://cdn.rawgit.com/dtgm/chocolatey-packages/22f97d7004cdb3702d7ac64d4fc81b47e25e89cf/icons/telegram.png This file was removed in 9b7b192a8aaec825b7b2a138d2b789c2660918c7.

Is there something I'm missing?

gep13 commented 1 year ago

@brogers5 the concern here was that the same hashed iconUrl hadn't been used in every single package version that exists on the Chocolatey Community Repository. To prevent the need to go through each package version, it is simply easier to leave the icon in place in this repository, since it doesn't do any harm.

However, in this case, it looks like the hashed URL was in place from the first package version, so removing the file from the repository makes sense in this case.

gep13 commented 1 year ago

@brogers5 thank you for removing these files, and for helping with the maintenance of this package.