[arch-general] standards on AUR content

[rafael ff1]

2012/5/11 Ruslan Nabioullin <rnabioullin at gmail.com>:
> I believe that there should be more comprehensive, clear, and explicit
> standards on what content is allowed to be installed by an AUR package.
> There already exist two guidelines [1]:
>
> 1. usefulness: "Make sure the package 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."
>
> 2. IP, content type (?) restrictions: "For most cases, everything is
> permitted, as long as you are in compliance with the licensing terms of
> the software..."
>
> The former is acceptable because "usefulness" is inherently subjective.
> The latter does state an important restriction regarding IP, but
> implicitly assumes that only software is permissible for AUR packages,
> when in fact there exist packages within the AUR which install only
> non-executable data.
>
> I believe that it is overall community consensus that such packages are
> permissible as long as they install documentation for a particular
> software package, a set of *closely*-related software packages, or the
> Archlinux distro as a whole (e.g., offline Archlinux wiki), and that
> documentation not directly applicable to the aforementioned, any
> standards (e.g., FHS, OFM), and any books (e.g., Pro Git) are outside
> the scope of the AUR.
>
> Any ideas? Do these proposed standards accurately reflect community
> consensus?
>
> [1] https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_User_Repository
>
> -Ruslan
>
> --
> Ruslan Nabioullin
> rnabioullin at gmail.com
>

Your email sounded like AUR is only used to provide software
documentation or books (except for non-free ones). I hope that's not
your intention, as it is not accurate.

Rafael