[aur-general] AUR Comment for customizepkg-ald

[Jonathan Steel]

On Tue 25 Nov 2014 at 23:13, Daniel Albers wrote:
> [...]
> There are thousands of AUR packages that are variants of other packages
> and I can't see any problem with that. In my understanding that's part
> of what AUR is for. Is it not?
> 
> It's been customary for AUR deletions, orphanings etc. to have a two
> weeks grace period. Should that not also apply to TUs?
> 
> The .tar.gz that you mentioned that violated the "no binaries on AUR"
> rule contained nothing but ASCII files (as does customizepk¹). If I
> unzip the tarball and re-upload it, does that not violate the rule? What
> if I also untar it and upload each text file individually?
> [...]

I am generally conservative when it comes to package deletions, but I saw
this as having two big problems; being a duplicate of another AUR package,
and including the tarball.

The PKGBUILD was identical (apart from a version bump and pkgname/pkgbase).

> The package was a patched version of customizepkg.

You must have included a modified tarball then, as there were no patches.

If you want to fork the project then host the source elsewhere; then it
will not be seen as a duplicate package. The AUR is not for hosting
projects, but for providing build files for packages.

-- 
Jonathan Steel