[aur-general] [Deletion Request] 115backup-gtk{2,3}
Could [1] and [2] please be removed? They aren't pointing to source files, they're pointing to .debs which are, as far as I am aware, binaries and not source. They were orphaned up to a month ago and don't have any votes or comments, so don't seem to be popular anyway. [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/115backup-gtk2/ [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/115backup-gtk3/ Cheers -- David Phillips GPG Key 0x7BF3D17D0884BF5B Fingerprint 2426 235A 7831 AA2F 56AF 4BC0 7BF3 D17D 0884 BF5B
I thought it was permissible to point to binaries just as long as you don't include binaries in the tarball that's uploaded to the AUR. On 23/04/14 12:19, David Phillips wrote:
Could [1] and [2] please be removed? They aren't pointing to source files, they're pointing to .debs which are, as far as I am aware, binaries and not source. They were orphaned up to a month ago and don't have any votes or comments, so don't seem to be popular anyway.
[1] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/115backup-gtk2/ [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/115backup-gtk3/
Cheers
On 23/04, David Phillips wrote:
Could [1] and [2] please be removed? They aren't pointing to source files, they're pointing to .debs which are, as far as I am aware, binaries and not source. They were orphaned up to a month ago and don't have any votes or comments, so don't seem to be popular anyway.
Repackaging binary packages are fine, and expected if said software isn't open source and they don't provide any other package. -- Sincerely, Johannes Löthberg PGP Key ID: 3A9D0BB5
I thought it was permissible to point to binaries just as long as you don't include binaries in the tarball that's uploaded to the AUR.
There is no strict rule for this - it's rather common sense. Binaries built by the upstream are OK (but if sources are available, then of course it's better to use them, but there's no obligation). Binaries from other sources... it depends. If you download some non-executable data like fonts, then it's justifiable too as long as checksums are provided. Executable from odd-looking sources on the internet, or self-compiled executables are not. 115backup-gtk2 and 115backup-gtk3 are OK - they download the sources directly from the upstream. Upstream doesn't provide sources. Skype works the same way. -- Kind regards, Damian Nowak StratusHost www.AtlasHost.eu
I was (for some reason) under the impression that AUR packages had to
be source-only with the exception of fonts, images, icons etc, but it
seems that I was wrong.
Cheers for the clarification!
On 23/04/2014, Nowaker
I thought it was permissible to point to binaries just as long as you don't include binaries in the tarball that's uploaded to the AUR.
There is no strict rule for this - it's rather common sense. Binaries built by the upstream are OK (but if sources are available, then of course it's better to use them, but there's no obligation). Binaries from other sources... it depends. If you download some non-executable data like fonts, then it's justifiable too as long as checksums are provided. Executable from odd-looking sources on the internet, or self-compiled executables are not.
115backup-gtk2 and 115backup-gtk3 are OK - they download the sources directly from the upstream. Upstream doesn't provide sources. Skype works the same way.
-- Kind regards, Damian Nowak StratusHost www.AtlasHost.eu
-- David Phillips GPG Key 0x7BF3D17D0884BF5B Fingerprint 2426 235A 7831 AA2F 56AF 4BC0 7BF3 D17D 0884 BF5B
participants (4)
-
Charles Bos
-
David Phillips
-
Johannes Löthberg
-
Nowaker