[aur-general] Tarball Guidelines
keenerd
keenerd at gmail.com
Mon Dec 6 10:02:04 EST 2010
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 4:59 AM, Nicky726 <nicky726 at gmail.com> wrote:
> been told by the bot, that selinux-flex has a binary (selinux-flex/flex-
> arch.patch.gz), which is a gziped patch. Guess I can ungzip it, though as this
> package is just a copy of a [core] package from some time ago, I guess the
> original maintainers new, what they were doing, if they included it this way.
> So should I do it to not include evil gziped patches?
Evil is such a strong word. It is just without benefit. Disturbs the
transparency of things. Technically against the rules.
Zipped patches was an edge case. Here, I chose to take a strict
interpritation of the edge cases. It is only a comment after all,
very little of consequence. Besides, Arch tries hard to not patch
things :-)
But thank you for taking the time to read and respond. So many
maintainers ignore comments.
-Kyle
http://kmkeen.com
More information about the aur-general
mailing list