On Fri, 17 Dec 2021, 11:20 Bjoern Bidar via aur-general, < aur-general@lists.archlinux.org> wrote:
On Fri, 17 Dec 2021 01:05:19 +0200
silentnoodle via aur-general <aur-general@lists.archlinux.org> wrote:
hey all,
Today a package i co maintain (telegram-desktop-bin) was deleted because "Package exists in official community repo", but since we used
binary as source I did not think that would have applied.
So guess I'd just like a word on what the first point in the rules of submission means:
https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/AUR_submission_guidelines#Rules_of_subm
ission
Cheers, Ben a.k.a silentnoodle
So basically: * telegram-desktop in community is git release 3.3.0 build by Arch Maintainers * telegram-desktop-bin in AUR is git release 3.3.0 build by upstream
For the end user, those two are basically the same package. Therefore
On Fri, 2021-12-17 at 00:17 +0100, Justin Kromlinger via aur-general wrote: prebuilt the
AUR package is a duplicate.
No, they aren't. I haven't looked into the request but if this is indeed the case, the package was incorrectly deleted. They package name indicates that both are the same but the other one is the prebulid by aur conventions. IMHO the prebuild made by upstream should have a packagename that indicates this.
Br,
Björn
Hello. Kind, but strong objections here. As I reported in https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/72749, many arch built QT applications are affected by a strange bug, and the community package telegram-desktop as well. But official static telegram binary is not. So it is at least not the same. And even better, it works for me. I don't get the recent movement "let's delete static binary packages", but it goes quite far. There are differences between community packages with shared libraries and static official builds. Kind regards, Mikhail f. Shiryaev