Thanks for the clarification. Cheers, Daniel Jonathan Steel <mail@jsteel.org> schrieb am 26.11.2014:
[...] There are thousands of AUR packages that are variants of other
and I can't see any problem with that. In my understanding that's
On Tue 25 Nov 2014 at 23:13, Daniel Albers wrote: packages part
of what AUR is for. Is it not?
It's been customary for AUR deletions, orphanings etc. to have a two weeks grace period. Should that not also apply to TUs?
The .tar.gz that you mentioned that violated the "no binaries on AUR" rule contained nothing but ASCII files (as does customizepk¹). If I unzip the tarball and re-upload it, does that not violate the rule? What if I also untar it and upload each text file individually? [...]
I am generally conservative when it comes to package deletions, but I saw this as having two big problems; being a duplicate of another AUR package, and including the tarball.
The PKGBUILD was identical (apart from a version bump and pkgname/pkgbase).
The package was a patched version of customizepkg.
You must have included a modified tarball then, as there were no patches.
If you want to fork the project then host the source elsewhere; then it will not be seen as a duplicate package. The AUR is not for hosting projects, but for providing build files for packages.