November 2025 - Aur-general - lists.archlinux.org

First AUR package pre-push questions
by Conor C. Peterson 21 Nov '25

21 Nov '25

Greetings folks, I've just created a small and simple package for a font that I like to use that isn't already available in the AUR --- [Inclusive Sans]( https://github.com/LivKing/Inclusive-Sans) [My PKGBUILD source]( https://privatebin.net/?3107c3b826818881#8F7zgoCiQFPJwpRBzYBb21JH1H6RPQHx38… ) After reading through [AUR submission guidelines | ArchWiki]( https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/AUR_submission_guidelines) I'm following the recommendations and asking two things on here: 1. Are there any improvements I should make to my PKGBUILD? - This is the first package I've ever created - I've mostly looked at the PKGBUILDs for `ttf-merriweather-sans` (linked in the wiki) and `ttf-rubik-vf` (as a more recent example) and created a new PKGBUILD based on those two existing ones. - Made sure `namcap` was reporting no errors/warnings. 2. Is this a worthwhile package to submit to the AUR? - After creating it and reading through the wiki, I realized this may be insufficiently useful to submit. Could it be useful to others? Certainly, as much as any font. But it _is_ quite a niche font, I guess. Thanks in advance, C. C. Peterson

3 3

Package deletion
by Gonsolo 21 Nov '25

21 Nov '25

Hi! I am the package maintainer of https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/openlane2 which is obsolete. How can I delete it? Thanks -- g

2 1

Submission rules unclear
by hirecguiihricy 19 Nov '25

19 Nov '25

Hey everyone, So I noticed some sandbox packages are being deleted — surprise — and the usual justification is “Personal configuration should be covered in ArchWiki.” Meanwhile, when I suggested merging linuxqq-nt-bwrap into the main linuxqq package (because of that Package Manager's action), that request got turned down — apparently it’s “popular.” Consistency much? This double standard and murky rule enforcement is confusing. Please fix the guidelines and explain exactly what’s allowed so people don’t waste time guessing which rules apply.

1 0

Fwd: How To Handle Hostile Maintainer w/out Dup AUR Packages
by Pranav Sharma 18 Nov '25

18 Nov '25

Hello all, I was wondering how to deal with a hostile maintainer who is squatting on a set of packages, but refuses to update them in a timely manner or to make improvements / fixes to the packages. The packages in question are wlcs, mir, and miracle-wm. I have been the one to update the packages this year, after a previous conflict where the current maintainer added me as a co-maintainer. They only did so when I opened an orphaned request after weeks of not updating the package, with zero communication. This person doesn't communicate, doesn't make sense when they are forced to, and acts down right hostile. I don't think they even use the packages, rather is interested in collecting AUR packages like they are pokemon, as they currently post on github "maintainer of 450+ AUR packages". They actually swooped in to claim the mir package after I sent in an orphan request so I could adopt it. Best, Pranav

1 0

naming: does minified code count as "source-based"?
by Christopher Cooper 11 Nov '25

11 Nov '25

Hi all, I maintain the claude-code package [1] on AUR along with ticpu. Claude Code is not an open source project. For most of the project's lifespan, it has been distributed only as an npm package [2], which contains only minified javascript. Recently, a "binary" version was released which appears to use the same code as released on npm, but bundled into a standalone executable using `bun build --compile` [3]. The official docs [4] now seem to prefer installing the standalone binary, though the option to install through npm is still available. I recently switched the package to use the distributed bun binary, rather than the minified npm package, since this seems to now be the installation method preferred by upstream. However, this raises an interesting question - should the package now be called "claude-code- bin" instead of "claude-code"? The logic here is that the "-bin" suffix should be used if a source- based package is available. In this case, the npm package would be such a "source-based" package. I personally find this argument uncompelling, as minified code doesn't really seem comparable to actual source code. The npm package and the distributed binary have essentially the same visibility into the underlying code that is being run - you could use `strings` or other methods to extract the minified code from the binary version. There's a second argument which is more compelling to me, that some users may prefer the npm-based installation, so it would be useful to have two different AUR packages. In this case, the new binary-based package could be called "claude-code-bin", and the previous npm-based package could be just "claude-code". (Of course, other naming schemes could be used, e.g. "claude-code" and "claude-code-npm".) Personally, I don't see great value in having two separate packages and the opportunity for user disruption seems high, but I'd love to hear people's opinions on this. This boils down to two questions: 1. Is it _against the package naming rules_ to call this package "claude- code" rather than "claude-code-bin"? 2. Do people think that this package _should_ be split into separate packages for the two installation methods, and if so, what should the packages be called? Thanks for your consideration, Christopher [1]: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/claude-code [2]: https://www.npmjs.com/package/@anthropic-ai/claude-code [3]: https://bun.com/docs/bundler/executables [4]: https://code.claude.com/docs/en/overview

2 1

Formalize rules for using "-bin" siffix in AUR package names
by Ashark 02 Nov '25

02 Nov '25

Hello. In the Arch Wiki there are rules for submitting packages. And in some areas they are not complete. and this sometimes leads to arguments when discussing if one or another way is correct. I want to make a hard rule for the "-bin" suffix for non-free software packages. I have opened discusssion here: https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/ Talk:Nonfree_applications_package_guidelines#Strict_rule_when_to_use_-bin_suffix If you have some authority in Arch Linux, please answer there. -- Andrew

1 0

duplication of pgadmin
by JPT 01 Nov '25

01 Nov '25

Hi I just stumbled upon the fact that there is a duplication of several pgadmin related packages. should we do something about it? which one should I use? Name Version Votes Popularity? Maintainer pgadmin4-desktop 9.8-1 16 1.62 alllexx88 pgadmin4-server-bin 9.9-1 1 0.87 higorslva phppgadmin 7.14.7-1 0 0.00 khvalera pgadmin4 9.8-4 2 1.13 lzx3in pgadmin4-bin 9.8-1 0 0.00 lzx3in pgadmin4-server 9.9-1 12 1.72 lzx3in pgadmin4-web 9.9-1 0 0.00 lzx3in see https://aur.archlinux.org/packages?O=0&SeB=nd&K=pgadmin&outdated=&SB=p&SO=d… thanks JPT

2 1