On 6/24/21 2:39 PM, Morten Linderud via aur-requests wrote:
On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 02:34:24PM -0400, Eli Schwartz via aur-requests wrote:>> Well uhhhhh funny story that:
https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/PKGBUILD#arch
I know this is not listed in the rules of submission page, but it is in the general packaging guidelines, and it's not like we haven't been deleting packages in the past, for precisely this. The rationale being, the *Arch* User Repository is in theory supposed to be for packages which can be run on Arch.
It's the same reason we delete Manjaro-specific packages.
There is a difference between Manjaro, a derivative distribution, and someone providing a port of our distribution adding PKGBUILDs to the AUR.
What is the difference here, other than "we like you more"? No one has argued that AUR packages should not include arch=('aarch64') or source_aarch64=(). And even my pacman-git PKGBUILD includes pacman.conf.arm hardcoding ARM repositories and a gigantic and slightly annoying to maintain loop case $CARCH in .... esac to set up makepkg.conf with the right flags. But this is in *addition* to providing x86_64 support for the package listing. I don't see any reason to permit "raspberrypi-udev" but forbid Manjaro's pacman-mirrors script. Both of them are useless to Arch users, but do something on another distro (ALARM is still considered !notarch, after all). Other than explicitly and publicly playing favorites. Is that the message we're trying to send? -- Eli Schwartz Bug Wrangler and Trusted User