[aur-general] Clarification for Deletion request #30701

[Xyne]

On 2021-12-17 07:01 -0800
Brett Cornwall via aur-general wrote:

>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

The -bin prefix is used for packages that package upstream binaries but the
assumption is typically that the resulting package is functionally equivalent
to the one built on Arch from source. That is why our policy is to delete -bin
package variants of binary packages in the official repos.

In this case, the upstream binaries are not functionally equivalent because
they are statically compiled and thus avoid a bug. They should be allowed on
the AUR, but the prefix should be something to indicate that it is not just a
-bin variant of the official package. Perhaps -static-bin would be appropriate.

The real solution is though is to fix the packages in the repos.