On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 03:58:25AM +0800, Ray Rashif wrote:
On 6 December 2010 22:47, Dave Reisner <d@falconindy.com> wrote:
On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 03:20:06PM +0100, Heiko Baums wrote:
In most cases there's a reason for having binaries, icons and the like in a package. And whether such a package actually has a bad quality or its contents are necessary can't be decided by a bot.
In _all_ cases, binaries are not permissable as stated by the AUR guidelines [1]. Your opinion doesn't change this. A proposal to amend the guidelines can.
Binaries here means binary executables. Nobody told us to read between the lines to pick out technical file types (of which an image file would be a 'binary file').
Fair enough. I took the strict interpretation of this -- non human readable files, including but not limited to: compiled code, images, tarballs, etc. Limiting to binary executables makes a bit more sense. dave