Sure, if you'd read one single bullet point after the one you cited:
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.
Check and check. If you're going to cite the rules, make sure you've read them thoroughly. The package stays until such time as the upstream software incorporates the patch. Campbell -------- Original Message -------- On 2/26/24 10:36 PM, Marcell Meszaros <marcell.meszaros@runbox.eu> wrote:
On 27 February 2024 03:48:20 GMT+01:00, notify@aur.archlinux.org wrote:
Request #48780 has been Rejected by serebit [1]:
Personal disagreement with a particular patch is not an acceptable reason to file a deletion request.
There was nothing personal in my submission reason.
What about AUR's rules of submission? [a]
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 If the official package is out-of-date, flag it as such.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.
Would you please address my argument about this?
And also, the other one about XDG base directory specification adherence, which is a stated goal and guideline of Arch Linux? Which means, that lack of adequate XDG conformance is a bug, which should be addressed by submitting an issue, as per the submission rules. Am I getting something wrong here?
[a]: https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/AUR_submission_guidelines#Rules_of_submissi...