[aur-general] Tarball Guidelines
stefan-husmann at t-online.de
Sat Dec 4 02:13:51 CET 2010
Am 03.12.2010 22:54, schrieb David Campbell:
> Excerpts from keenerd's message of 2010-12-03 13:46:10 -0500:
>> 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.
> Isn't this the sort of thing namcap was designed for? Maybe
> namcap should be extended to do checks on .src packages, and a
> report could be posted automatically using namcap when someone
> posts a .src package to the AUR.
> David Campbell
No, namcap is a tool for providing clean packages, not for clean
But again, if the "uncleanlyness" of the aur tarballs in discussion
here only consists in the fact that they provide icon files, they are
IMHO not even unclean.
More information about the aur-general