[arch-general] `base` group replaced by mandatory `base`, package - manual intervention required

[Eli Schwartz]

On 10/11/19 6:10 PM, Daniel Moch via arch-general wrote:
> I see in the archive[1] that these were deleted for not following the
> submission guidelines[2]. I'm not sure how that's the case, unless the
> logic is that since they merely bundle packages in Community that they
> violate rule #1?
> 
> If that's the logic, does that mean any meta packages in the AUR violate
> the submission guidelines?
> 
> Can someone clarify? I'm genuinely a little confused here ...
> 
> [1] - https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-requests/2019-October/034288.html
> [2] - https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/AUR_submission_guidelines

Metapackages are a tough question, but in this case a metapackage to
ease installation which requires one to use the AUR to get the
metapackage seems to be quite pointless. Besides which, uploading a
package as a reactive measure due to the lack of clarity with the former
base group feels odd when people are working behind the scenes to try to
figure out what a proper solution in the right place should look like.

-- 
Eli Schwartz
Bug Wrangler and Trusted User

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 1601 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-general/attachments/20191011/b10ef654/attachment.sig>