Hi, Scimmia pointed me to [1] in answer of a request by me on forum. I re-read the page and realised the exception to the first rule leaves some things open. text quoted from wiki for reference : * The submitted PKGBUILDs must not build applications *already in any* of the *official* binary *repositories* under any circumstances. Check the official package database <https://www.archlinux.org/packages/> for the package. If any version of it exists, *do not* submit the package. If the official package is out-of-date, flag it as such. If the official package is broken or is lacking a feature, then please file a bug report <https://bugs.archlinux.org/>. *Exception* to this strict rule may only be packages having *extra features* enabled and/or *patches* in comparison to the official ones. In such an occasion the |pkgname| should be different to express that difference. For example, a package for GNU screen containing the sidebar patch could be named |screen-sidebar|. Additionally the |provides=('screen')| array should be used in order to avoid conflicts with the official package. The package types listed below are in AUR and appear to be allowed but are not mentioned in the exception . - packages that *remove *features. example : mesa-noglvnd[2] disables glvnd support but is otherwise the same as extra/mesa of the same upstream version . Maybe change the wording to clarify this ? - VCS packages building trunk master or specific branches example : gcc-git [3] The PKGBUILD is very similar to repo version, but it does build trunk master. Are they considered to have 'patches' or should they be mentioned specifically ? - VCS packages building a specific commit or revision (Sorry, can't find an example atm.) Usually these are considered 'stable' versions. Are they seen as packages having patches or should they have their own rule ? Suppose we have 2 packages of this type : A builds a commit that matches exactly with latest released version, B builds some commit without a tag or label.. In my opinion A violates rule#1, but I'm unsure about B. How do we make the difference clear ? - Older versions of repo packages There are plenty of older versions of repo packages in AUR . Just search for gcc or llvm. I don't see anything in the exception that applies to these packages. Lone_Wolf [1] https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/AUR_submission_guidelines [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/mesa-noglvnd [3] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/gcc-git/