On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 8:30 PM notify@aur.archlinux.org wrote:

tjbp [1] filed a deletion request for shashlik-bin [2]:

This package already exists under "shashlik". Could do with a shashlik-git package, however.

[1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/tjbp/ [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/shashlik-bin/

If we remove my -bin package, shashlik should be renamed since it is built from a binary package, and not source.

Thanks, Jameson.

On 02-03-16 18:09, Tom Pitcher wrote:

Is this standardised convention? Happy to switch mine to compiling from source if so.

On Sunday, 28 February 2016 16:13:36 GMT Jameson wrote:

...

On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 8:30 PM notify@aur.archlinux.org wrote:

...

tjbp [1] filed a deletion request for shashlik-bin [2]:

This package already exists under "shashlik". Could do with a shashlik-git package, however.

[1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/tjbp/ [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/shashlik-bin/

If we remove my -bin package, shashlik should be renamed since it is built from a binary package, and not source.

Thanks, Jameson.

Yes, general convention is that packages built from source use "pure" packagename . Any packages using binaries should have a -bin suffix.