[aur-general] Clarification for Deletion request #30701

[alad]

On Fri, 17 Dec 2021 07:01:08 -0800
Brett Cornwall via aur-general <aur-general at lists.archlinux.org> wrote:

> 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 If the official package is out-of-date, flag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

The upstream build is vastly different from the repos. Besides lacking bugs in the downstream version, it only has a fraction of the dependencies (i.e. no pipewire). As such I see no valid reason for the deletion.

Alad


-- 
alad <alad at archlinux.org>