[aur-general] Question about AUR submission guidelines rule #1

[Lone_Wolf]

Hi,


Scimmia pointed me to [1] in answer of  a request by me on forum. I 
re-read the page and realised the exception to the first rule leaves 
some things open.

text quoted from wiki for reference :

  * The submitted PKGBUILDs must not build applications *already in any*
    of the *official* binary *repositories* under any circumstances.
    Check the official package database
    <https://www.archlinux.org/packages/> for the package. If any
    version of it exists, *do not* submit the package. If the official
    package is out-of-date, flag it as such. If the official package is
    broken or is lacking a feature, then please file a bug report
    <https://bugs.archlinux.org/>.

    *Exception* to this strict rule may only be packages having *extra
    features* enabled and/or *patches* in comparison to the official
    ones. In such an occasion the |pkgname| should be different to
    express that difference. For example, a package for GNU screen
    containing the sidebar patch could be named |screen-sidebar|.
    Additionally the |provides=('screen')| array should be used in order
    to avoid conflicts with the official package.


The package types listed below are in AUR and appear to be allowed but 
are not mentioned in the exception .


        - packages that *remove *features.

example : mesa-noglvnd[2] disables glvnd support but is otherwise the 
same as extra/mesa of the same upstream version .

Maybe change the wording to clarify this ?


        - VCS packages building trunk master or specific branches

example : gcc-git [3]

The PKGBUILD is very similar to repo version, but it does build trunk 
master.

Are they considered to have 'patches' or should they be mentioned 
specifically ?


        - VCS packages building a specific commit or revision

(Sorry, can't find an example atm.)

Usually these are considered 'stable' versions. Are they seen as 
packages having patches or should they have their own rule ?

Suppose we have  2 packages of this type :

A builds a commit that matches exactly with latest released version, B 
builds some commit without a tag or label..

In my opinion A violates rule#1, but I'm unsure about B.

How do we make the difference clear ?


        - Older versions of repo packages

There are plenty of older versions of repo packages in AUR . Just search 
for gcc or llvm.

I don't see anything in the exception that applies to these packages.


Lone_Wolf


[1] https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/AUR_submission_guidelines

[2] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/mesa-noglvnd

[3] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/gcc-git/