[aur-general] Tarball Guidelines
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
But thank you for taking the time to read and respond. So many
maintainers ignore comments.
More information about the aur-general