[aur-general] Tarball Guidelines

Dave Reisner d at falconindy.com
Mon Dec 6 04:39:17 CET 2010

On Sun, Dec 05, 2010 at 10:19:01PM -0500, Slash wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 9:42 PM, keenerd <keenerd at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Thanks for all the input.  I'm pushing the posts now and it should be
> > done in a few hours.  For now it is just doing a single pass, but in
> > the future I'll set it up to track the RSS.
> >
> > There is a lot of fun stuff in the AUR.  More stats later.  For now,
> > here is my favorite:
> >
> > 472 packages had a single PNG.  1 package had 100 PNGs.
> >
> > For more fun, try to find the bot.  He's tagging 4% of packages, so it
> > should not be too hard.
> >
> > -Kyle
> > http://kmkeen.com
> >
> I would suggest modifying the bot's comments to point out the fact
> it's an automated message and not an actual user, so people aren't
> replying to it and expecting a response.
> It may make more sense to include this functionality as part of the
> upload process and notify the maintainer at that point, so comment
> areas aren't filled with bot spam every time there's a new package
> revision for packages with legitimate "binary" file usage.

IMO, the AUR shouldn't even warn you about this. Either your tarball
passes a set of criteria (described by the packaging guidelines) and
it's accepted to the AUR, or its rejected reason and the user can try

queue mentions of aur is in 'maintenance mode', etc etc...


More information about the aur-general mailing list