[aur-general] Tarball Guidelines
Thomas S Hatch
thatch45 at gmail.com
Fri Dec 3 20:00:25 CET 2010
Honestly if there was a parser that would just inform us of our sucktitude
ever now and then we would most likely become better maintainers.
I am all for the insults, diplomatic insults of course
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 11:55 AM, Ike Devolder <ike.devolder at gmail.com>wrote:
> On Friday 03 December 2010 19:46:10 keenerd wrote:
> > Officially, the tarballs uploaded to the AUR should be named after
> > their package, contain a directory named after their package, contain
> > no dot files and most importantly contain no binaries. Officially,
> > these requirements are very important.
> > Here are a bunch of non-conforming packages. Maybe 90% of them. (A
> > few errors slip though my scanner.)
> > Of the +700 packages with binaries, most are a simple desktop icon.
> > Should these be base64 encoded if someone can't find hosting?
> > If no one can think of a better way to deal with the nonconforming
> > packages, I'll write a bot to post insulting comments. Personally, I
> > really like this solution. The AUR has always had a wild west
> > frontier / insane asylum feel to it. The less regulation, the better
> > it works. But a few well placed suggestions could help make the two
> > thousand maintainers do a better job.
> > -Kyle
> > http://kmkeen.com
> please send insults, i'll find my eventually wrong packages faster :p
More information about the aur-general