[aur-general] Tarball Guidelines

[Simon Stoakley]

The day was 03/12/10 21:24 when , Xyne had this to say......:
> 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
>

I to hope that icons as ok, I've tested base64 encoding with ine of my 
pkg's that has an icon in and the size increased by over a third (from 
60223 B to 82412 B). Also worth mentioning is that i only included the 
icon when someone requested a .desktop file, and as Stefan mentioned 
they're a bit 'off' with no matching icon.

> 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.

Please don't send me horrible comments!

If anyone's interested I used this site for the encoding.

http://www.motobit.com/util/base64-decoder-encoder.asp
--