I have nothing more than being an official binary. However, community / filezilla has some GTK bugs and aur / filezilla-bin doesn't. I have no specialized knowledge, so I can't identify the cause, so I'm using the official binary. 2021年11月2日(火) 17:40 Morgan Adamiec :

On 02/11/2021 08:37, 山田ハヤオ via aur-general wrote:

...

A request to remove filezilla-bin has been submitted (PRQ#28985]) [1]

aur/filezilla-bin, unlike community/filezilla, provides binaries already officially built. Please do not delete the currently submitted deletion request as it is incorrect.

Yamada Hayao

[1] https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-requests/2021-November/060268.html

Official binaries or not it's still a duplicate of a repo package unless you have a reason for why it's not. And in that cause it should probably be better renamed to reflect that.

On 2021-11-03 10:04, 山田ハヤオ via aur-general wrote:

Grawlinson, You should look at this mailing list. The filezilla-bin package is completely different from the community one. And that's easy to see by looking at the PKGBUILD source code.

The differences are not substantial, and this package won't be reinstated as it violates policy. If the officially-built binary is what you want to use, then use it on your machine! But it doesn't belong in the AUR. (As a side note, Filezilla is a *super* shady entity and I wouldn't ever touch those official binaries.)

On 2021-11-03 10:38, 山田ハヤオ wrote:

If the difference isn't important, what's important? This can lead to the removal of all *-bin packages. I have a screenshot that proves a clear difference, but it probably has no effect.

Please review the submission guidelines: https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/AUR_submission_guidelines#Rules_of_submissi... In particular:

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 If the official package is out-of-date, flag it as such.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.

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.

(N.B. "Official upstream binary" is not considered a feature). Even if there weren't a strict rule against uploading packages already in the official repositories, there's this:

Make sure the package you want to upload is useful. Will anyone else want to use this package? Is it extremely specialized? If more than a few people would find this package useful, it is appropriate for submission.

I doubt that the official binary is something desirable to the larger community. Consider maintaining your own personal PKGBUILD; many Archers do! But please know that not every package belongs on the AUR. Hope this helps!