URGENT: Let me maintain this repository

[jasongodev]

Good day everyone, it has been months since the last working build of MEGAsync flatpak. There has been no fix done for the packaging issues and bug issues since version 5.0 onwards.

I took the liberty to rewrite the flatpak manifest to conform with the new build instructions of MEGAsync. My work was tested by flatbot and built successfully: https://github.com/flathub/nz.mega.MEGAsync/pull/94

With so many months delayed with no fix I believe my work deserves an urgent consideration to be merged.

I personally use MEGAsync in my Linux workstations and so I am dedicated to oversee this repo moving forward.

Hoping for your consideration.

-- Jason Go

[albertescanes]

Hi there, Thank you for your dedication. I'd really like to see MEGAsync up to date on Flathub. Any chance we can get the rewrite of manifest merged ? From what I've seen, adding new maintainers can be requested on github.com/flathub/flathub/issues. Many thanks,

[jasongodev]

@albertescanes okay I made the request now. I hope it will be granted.

[loukamb]

Any updates on this? Is there a way to manually import your fork of the flatpak for the time being? @jasongodev

edit: Figured it out. Your fork works perfectly.

[jasongodev]

Any updates on this? Is there a way to manually import your fork of the flatpak for the time being? @jasongodev

edit: Figured it out. Your fork works perfectly.

I'm still reworking on the correct implementation of the flatpak package. The one in my forked repo is not updated, most notably the autostart routine fix has not been incorporated yet. In my private repo it's already fixed.

I will create a pull request again once all are done.

[zunjack]

Is there an annoyingly long and tedious approval process for adding maintainers?

He wants to fix the package, come on, just let him maintain it.

[jasongodev]

Is there an annoyingly long and tedious approval process for adding maintainers?

He wants to fix the package, come on, just let him maintain it.

@zunjack from the previous reviews there are valid concerns from the reviewers regarding the way I made the patches. The summary of the discussion is that I used a couple of regex to practically patch a LOT of files needed to compile a vcpkg-based program inside flatpak builder. My method reduces the lines of code patches needed to review at the expense of the need for the maintainers to understand regex. The current maintainers opted for a patch file based instead. So now I need to apply all the regex patches and produce individual patch files for all the files affected. Just to give you some understanding, one of my regex patch affects around 10 files in one sweep. That's practical because when one of the vcpkg dependencies changes, my regex patch can dynamically take care of it. But the current maintainers do not want to deal with regex and instead wanted to have patch files for each of the files. Maintenance wise it will be a lot of files to review but at least you don't need to understand regex deeply like what I do.

For now I'm still working on the files, also given that updates in the Linux binaries have progressed 2 versions already, so it's a catch-up game.

The current maintainers could have let my tentative flatpak build to be published for the sake of having a new flatpak binaries. But I understand they need to be extra careful and so everyone has to wait longer.