[aur-general] Tarball Guidelines
d at falconindy.com
Mon Dec 6 21:09:40 CET 2010
On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 03:58:25AM +0800, Ray Rashif wrote:
> On 6 December 2010 22:47, Dave Reisner <d at falconindy.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 03:20:06PM +0100, Heiko Baums wrote:
> >> In most cases there's a reason for having binaries, icons and the like
> >> in a package. And whether such a package actually has a bad quality or
> >> its contents are necessary can't be decided by a bot.
> > In _all_ cases, binaries are not permissable as stated by the AUR
> > guidelines . Your opinion doesn't change this. A proposal to amend the
> > guidelines can.
> Binaries here means binary executables. Nobody told us to read between
> the lines to pick out technical file types (of which an image file
> would be a 'binary file').
Fair enough. I took the strict interpretation of this -- non human
readable files, including but not limited to: compiled code, images,
tarballs, etc. Limiting to binary executables makes a bit more sense.
More information about the aur-general