Loui Chang:
I would hope some TU does add 'aur' to the blacklist of package names.
That would make sense if the package was misleading, but "aur" is an aur client for publishing to the AUR. It couldn't have clearer naming.
Have a look at "sex", described as "spouts silly mad-lib style porn-like text". I'm still wondering what that means.
Bottom line is that packages can be named after anything you want. As long as they are named the same as upstream, and the software is legal and useful.
Or I could have named it "aur-client". It's just I saw the shortest version "aur" more practical for typing in the terminal, and having the package named after the command more insightful.
The package name is now "aur-publisher-git https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/aur-publisher-git".
Command renamed from "aur" to "box", for preventing conflicts with "aur.1" at aurutils.
Box is meant to be a short form for "package definition". So a command like "box get" is natural and short.
Also the package has been renamed from "aur-publisher-git" to "aur-box https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/aur-box/" for consistency.
Excerpts from Alberto Salvia Novella via aur-general's message of November 2, 2019 10:04 pm:
Command renamed from "aur" to "box", for preventing conflicts with "aur.1" at aurutils.
Sounds reasonable. Thanks.
Alad
Box is meant to be a short form for "package definition". So a command like "box get" is natural and short.
Also the package has been renamed from "aur-publisher-git" to "aur-box https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/aur-box/" for consistency.
On Tue, 29 Oct 2019 at 11:20:27, Alberto Salvia Novella via aur-general wrote:
That would make sense if the package was misleading, but "aur" is an aur client for publishing to the AUR. It couldn't have clearer naming.
There are other reasons you might not want to use this name.
One is conflicts with other popular programs (you want your program to be co-installable alongside other packages).
Another one is that we'd prefer you to not use a name that sounds very official for a very unofficial project. We decided to add "aur" to our blacklist. Feel free to reupload your package under another name.
Lukas Fleischer:
Another one is that we'd prefer you to not use a name that sounds very official for a very unofficial project.
That sounds reasonable in theory, but in practice it does nothing. The software does its work nicely, and there's no official alternative that does such thing. Plus being in the AUR implicitly suggests it's unofficial.
So it doesn't matter https://signalvnoise.com/archives2/it_just_doesnt_matter.php, it's just for the political correctness. I could name it "aup", but really, what's the deal? I simply thought that typing "aur get" would be more meaningful to the end user, but whatever.
Another alternative is that you name what criteria such program shall meet to be considered official. And see if we can get to a common ground.
On Tue, 29 Oct 2019 at 16:07:34, Alberto Salvia Novella wrote:
Lukas Fleischer:
Another one is that we'd prefer you to not use a name that sounds very official for a very unofficial project.
That sounds reasonable in theory, but in practice it does nothing. The software does its work nicely, and there's no official alternative that does such thing. Plus being in the AUR implicitly suggests it's unofficial.
So it doesn't matter https://signalvnoise.com/archives2/it_just_doesnt_matter.php, it's just for the political correctness. I could name it "aup", but really, what's the deal? I simply thought that typing "aur get" would be more meaningful to the end user, but whatever.
Another alternative is that you name what criteria such program shall meet to be considered official. And see if we can get to a common ground.
A third option is that we do not want an official implementation of this feature and still ask you not to use a name that makes it look like something official.
It's not just for "political correctness". Often enough, we are dealing with users reporting bugs against official projects when the actual issue is with some unofficial AUR helper. Giving another project such a misleading name is likely a step in the wrong direction.
Okay, thanks. I will think of another name.
Would it be good enough for you if I renamed it from "aur" to "aur-client"? So at least it won't sound like the AUR itself?
On Wed, 30 Oct 2019 at 11:04:07, Alberto Salvia Novella wrote:
Would it be good enough for you if I renamed it from "aur" to "aur-client"? So at least it won't sound like the AUR itself?
We currently only block aur and aurweb. There is some gray area but I'd suggest to use another name that does not belong to the set aur{,web}{,-cli,-client}. These are all names we would potentially use for an official client and might decide to delete anytime.
Okay, thanks.
On 10/29/19 4:07 PM, Alberto Salvia Novella via aur-general wrote:
Lukas Fleischer:
Another one is that we'd prefer you to not use a name that sounds very official for a very unofficial project.
That sounds reasonable in theory, but in practice it does nothing. The software does its work nicely,
Hold on to those value judgments. Everyone likes to think their work works nicely, but saying so isn't an intellectually meritorious argument when discussing whether to make a rule or grant someone an exception to a rule.
and there's no official alternative that does such thing.
Well, there is aurpublish, available in [community]. I think this is as close to "official" for uploading packages to the AUR, as we're likely to get.
(Disclaimer: I wrote aurpublish and think it is pretty nifty as far as that goes.)
There shall never be an "official" way to download packages from the AUR, however, other than "follow the clone or tarball links from the webpage".
See point #2: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/AUR_Trusted_User_Guidelines#Rules_for_P...
Plus being in the AUR implicitly suggests it's unofficial.
So I'm free to upload a package called "official-aur-helper", then?
So it doesn't matter https://signalvnoise.com/archives2/it_just_doesnt_matter.php, it's just for the political correctness.
Saying the rules -- even brand new rules created in response to your project -- "doesn't matter, it's just for political correctness" is not a great way to convince anyone of things, IMO.
Your link talks about, essentially, "the perfect is the enemy of the good enough". For example, a direct quote:
"Would these things be nice to have? Sure. Would they be great to have? Sure. Would they be cool to have? You bet. But do they really matter? Nope. And that’s why we left them out."
This is... not related to political correctness, and I would agree it's not really worth implementing a blacklist just to deal with this, but since we have a blacklist anyway, we can get the "cool to have" feature of avoiding confusion with a pkgname="aur".
Your own link actually says we should block this package if it can be trivially done without effort!
I could name it "aup", but really, what's the deal? I simply thought that typing "aur get" would be more meaningful to the end user, but whatever.
What if the user tries typing 'aur sync', which is provided by the 'aurutils' package? Now we have two implementations of "aur", and they don't correctly conflicts=() each other! At least one of them has its own unique brand, though. (It even has a logo: https://github.com/AladW/aurutils/blob/master/06Nitori1.png)
Another alternative is that you name what criteria such program shall meet to be considered official. And see if we can get to a common ground.
Now I'm genuinely confused. Are you asking for criteria for the sake of getting your AUR helper to achieve the status of "official"?
aur-general@lists.archlinux.org