[aur-general] Tarball Guidelines
xyne at archlinux.ca
Tue Dec 7 10:49:54 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.
If the patch is large then what's the problem with compressing it?
More information about the aur-general