[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.


More information about the aur-general mailing list