[aur-general] AUR Comment for customizepkg-ald
mail at jsteel.org
Tue Nov 25 23:46:35 UTC 2014
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.
More information about the aur-general