[aur-general] Tarball Guidelines

[Ray Rashif]

On 7 December 2010 10:02, Loui Chang <louipc.ist at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue 07 Dec 2010 03:58 +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 [1]. Your opinion doesn't change this. A proposal to amend the
>> > guidelines can.
>>
>> There is no need to ammend the guidelines. We have been including
>> desktop files, images (needed by the desktop files most of the time)
>> and init scripts all along, because it should be a common
>> understanding.
>>
>> find /var/abs -name *.png | wc -l == 60
>
> I might be kind of crazy here, but maybe desktop files and icons are
> things that should be distributed from upstream. So maintainers should
> work to get those included like a patch or whatnot.

Definitely.

Another interesting observation I've made in packages from both our
repos and AUR:

* Upstream tarball includes icons but they are not provided by the
install method

This gives a false impression that upstream does not provide the icon,
so the maintainer includes it in the package.

As for desktop files, aside from the above, sometimes they violate
specs, so maintainers replace them with compatible ones, including an
icon image along as well (forgetting that they can get it from the
tarball instead).