[aur-general] AUR Comment for customizepkg-ald

Daniel Albers daniel at lbe.rs
Thu Nov 27 14:50:25 UTC 2014

Thanks for the clarification.

Cheers, Daniel

Jonathan Steel <mail at jsteel.org> schrieb am 26.11.2014:
>On Tue 25 Nov 2014 at 23:13, Daniel Albers wrote:
>> [...]
>> There are thousands of AUR packages that are variants of other
>> and I can't see any problem with that. In my understanding that's
>> 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?
>> if I also untar it and upload each text file individually?
>> [...]
>I am generally conservative when it comes to package deletions, but I
>this as having two big problems; being a duplicate of another AUR
>and including the tarball.
>The PKGBUILD was identical (apart from a version bump and
>> The package was a patched version of customizepkg.
>You must have included a modified tarball then, as there were no
>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 mailing list