On Tue, 28 Dec 2021 10:34:58 -0800 Brett Cornwall via aur-general <aur-general@lists.archlinux.org> wrote:
On 2021-12-28 12:08, Doug Newgard via aur-general wrote:
On Tue, 28 Dec 2021 09:21:01 -0800 Brett Cornwall via aur-general <aur-general@lists.archlinux.org> wrote:
Feel free to post an RFC. In the meantime, I'll continue to follow the rules that have been established.
Established where? Upstream builds as -bin packages were fine in the AUR for years, it's only recently that a couple of TUs have decided to disallow it.
Established in the AUR submission guidelines [1], which has been quoted thrice now:
The submitted PKGBUILDs must not build applications already in any of the official binary repositories under any circumstances. Check the official package database 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 If the official package is out-of-date, flag it as such.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.
The point of this section is to prevent people from uploading updated version of repo PKBGUILDs because they're impatient. That's why it specifically talks about that. You may interpret it differently, but that's not how it was meant or how it has been done in the past. You'll also note that it gives exceptions for software that's build differently, different options/libs/etc. That would easily cover this case, as upstream will NOT be building it the same way as Arch.
I don't care about what we do, so long as it's consistent with our rules. Saying "it's always been this way" is an appeal to tradition and is not helpful as an argument.
So yes, an RFC/change in how our *rules* say we should behave would be the correct way forward instead of having three different interpretations of what we currently have.
[1] https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/AUR_submission_guidelines#Rules_of_submissi...