Page MenuHomeSolus

Closed, ResolvedPublic


RcloneBrowser is a simple cross platfrom GUI for the rclone command line tool.

Open source: yes


I don't want to tread on any toes here, but I've just built this as an exercise and have the patch "0001-Initial-commit-of-rclone-browser.patch". It seem like I could assign this to myself, but that didn't seem right, so... what to do?
Also, I wasn't sure about naming. I have rclone-browser, but I think the program is "branded" as "RcloneBrowser".

Related Objects

Duplicates Merged Here
T8544: rclone-browser

Event Timeline

metchebe created this task.Mar 20 2017, 6:13 PM
centzon400 updated the task description. (Show Details)Mar 21 2017, 11:54 AM
centzon400 added a subscriber: centzon400.
JoshStrobl updated the task description. (Show Details)Apr 5 2017, 1:00 PM
JoshStrobl closed this task as Wontfix.Apr 5 2017, 1:04 PM
JoshStrobl claimed this task.
JoshStrobl added a subscriber: JoshStrobl.

Pardon my asking, but what entry requirements need to be waived to get this included?

If the software appears in Debian and/or Ubuntu, and openSUSE, in the currently active, core repositories, the maintainer is permitted to waive some entry requirements (This does not apply to software license, legality or known-insecure software. Additionally this cannot be used to bypass the server rules.). PPAs, OBS projects outside of the openSUSE: namespace, or Arch Linux, do NOT add any weight to a request.

I would appreciate clarification so as to not request in the future packages that will be rejected.


It isn't that other entry requirements need to be waived, it's that if it appears in those operating system's core repositories, then other requirements **may* be waived, such as specifics on value add, software age, etc.

Josh, that part is clear.

However as I understand (and I could be mistaken) this project is alive and produces stable releases, is useful (as it complements another package 'rclone' that I assume was also deemed useful), can be redistributed and is not complicated to incorporate into Solus. As a matter of fact I extracted the binary from the ubuntu .deb and it works out of the box.

Again, I ask only to better understand the criteria used, thanks.

ClarkeCC added a subscriber: ClarkeCC.EditedJun 21 2017, 11:36 PM

Could this be reopened? Could use something like this to sync to my portable hard drive.

danr added a subscriber: danr.Aug 23 2018, 9:16 AM
JoshStrobl reopened this task as Open.Dec 14 2019, 10:16 AM
JoshStrobl removed JoshStrobl as the assignee of this task.
JoshStrobl moved this task from Backlog to Accepted For Inclusion on the Package Requests board.

Re-opening and accepting this for inclusion, the decision to reject this was made when we had a 2-Distro requirement, which is not something we have anymore. However, do not take this as an invitation to re-request previously rejected packages that were done under the same specific clause in our older Package Inclusion Policy. Chhers.

To whomever opts to package this, obviously the latest release, 1.7.0+, should be the provided version.

JoshStrobl triaged this task as Normal priority.Dec 14 2019, 10:16 AM
JoshStrobl added a project: Needs Maintainer.

@JoshStrobl The GitHub for this project has been archived and the author mentions at the top it's no longer active/maintained. Should we still proceed with packaging this?

netchup added a subscriber: netchup.Jan 8 2020, 7:27 PM