On 24/09/13 07:42PM, corey bruce wrote:
Hi there Adam
Hello Corey,
[...]
Please do not open new threads for each answer that you're sending but instead just reply to the previous mails in order to keep everything in one place.
Thanks Corey
Cheers, Chris
On 10/9/24 11:58 pm, Brian Allred wrote:
Sep 10, 2024, 04:46 by cdfrosty@gmail.com:
Hello everyone, I hope you are all doing well
I just wanted to talk about the discussion about my package sm64ex-bin, I was informed to chat about it on the mailing list so I wanted to make sure I was in the right place. I will admit the initial issue frustrated me and felt a little targeted especially when most of my other bin packages use binaries from my repository but I wanted to discuss the issue and resolve any allegations of slander that was put on with no factual evidence to provide when I have been a long time package developer on the AUR and a longer time developer on Github and Gitlab which I use now.
It isn't against the rules to compile from source and host the binaries on your own repository especially if the original repository does not provide any or doesn't provide them for specific architectures, I wanted to create a bin package for a project for user to use and enjoy the project without needing to wait for compiling times especially on Raspberry pi devices every time while also bundling it with my launch scripts if needed,. For example NZPortable-bin binaries are provided from my git repository for the nzportable-bin package but I am officially supported by the team to do so and it's a bit harsh to slander me with assumptions that I am a bad actor with no evidence, it's also pretty rule and a bit insulting to my credibility.
All I ask is to have the ability to re upload my package and continue to maintain the bin package for sm64ex-bin for all the users who use it including myself, I am happy to talk about any upstanding issues and fix any concerns if there is any.
Thank you
Corey Bruce
Hey Corey,
From a user perspective, my main concern would be that the source used to compile the hosted binary file is available. If you're literally only hosting a binary file, then I expect the source code used to compile said file would be the original source - in this case from the sm64ex repo. If you're including source modifications during the build process, then I would expect the modified source to be available, and ideally (though not a hard requirement), I'd prefer the binary file hosted as a GitHub/GitLab release asset on the same repo.
The other issue I could see is if a compiled form of sm64ex no longer requires the user to provide the game ROM. If your sm64ex-bin package can be installed and run without the user ever providing a ROM file, then I can understand an AUR admin being hesitant to host that package.
I'm not privy to any previous comments or allegations, so I can't speak to those. And I'm not an AUR admin or Arch staff member. But again, from a user perspective, as long as the source used to compile the binary file is available, it doesn't really bother me where the file is hosted or who's hosting it. I don't see a big difference between you hosting the file and maintaining the AUR package versus an original developer doing so.
Hopefully this issue can be resolved amicably.
Brian Allred