[aur-general] Clarification for Deletion request #30701

[Brett Cornwall]

On 2021-12-17 09:54, Filipe Laíns via aur-general wrote:
>On Fri, 2021-12-17 at 00:17 +0100, Justin Kromlinger via aur-general wrote:
>> On Fri, 17 Dec 2021 01:05:19 +0200
>> silentnoodle via aur-general <aur-general at lists.archlinux.org> wrote:
>>
>> > hey all,
>> >
>> > Today a package i co maintain (telegram-desktop-bin) was deleted because
>> > "Package exists in official community repo", but since we used prebuilt
>> > binary as source I did not think that would have applied.
>> >
>> > So guess I'd just like a word on what the first point in the rules of
>> > submission means:
>> > https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/AUR_submission_guidelines#Rules_of_submission
>> >
>> > Cheers, Ben a.k.a silentnoodle
>>
>> So basically:
>> * telegram-desktop in community is git release 3.3.0 build by Arch Maintainers
>> * telegram-desktop-bin in AUR is git release 3.3.0 build by upstream
>>
>> For the end user, those two are basically the same package. Therefore the AUR
>> package is a
>> duplicate.
>>
>
>No, they aren't. I haven't looked into the request but if this is indeed the
>case, the package was incorrectly deleted.

 From the rules of submission [1]:

> The submitted PKGBUILDs must not build applications already in any of
> the official binary repositories under any circumstances. Check the
> official package database 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 If the official package is out-of-date, flag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.

> 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.

Submitting a package that is only different from the technicality that 
someone else built it is not enough to warrant its own package. If 
there's an issue with the telegram package in the repos, users should 
submit a bug report.

As it stands, there was nothing notated in the package to suggest that 
it was anything but an upstream binary, so that was why I deleted it.

[1] https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/AUR_submission_guidelines#Rules_of_submission
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 228 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/attachments/20211217/cf787c36/attachment.sig>