[aur-general] Tarball Guidelines

Xyne xyne at archlinux.ca
Fri Dec 3 22:24:01 CET 2010

On 2010-12-03 20:33 +0100 (48:5)
Stefan Husmann wrote:

> Am 03.12.2010 19:46, schrieb keenerd:
> > 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
> Hello,
> I think, icon files should be tolerated, and always have been (since I use 
> Arch Linux), if there is a desktop file and no downloadable icon delivered 
> upstream.  Having desktop files which point to an icon but not having the 
> icon itself does not make much sense to me.
> Yes, taken verbatim, icons fall under binaries. But the spirit behind the 
> restriction is that binaries often meen "executable binaries" which are 
> virtually always downloadable or build by the makepkg step.
> Regards Stefan

I agree with Stefan. Also, base64 encoding files would only increase the size
of the package (however insignificantly) without any benefit.

The "no binaries" rule really means "don't include compiled files, large files,
sandwiches, or anything else that shouldn't be in here" :P

More information about the aur-general mailing list