[aur-general] Clarification for Deletion request #30701

[Brett Cornwall]

On 2021-12-28 13:17, Doug Newgard via aur-general wrote:
>On Tue, 28 Dec 2021 10:34:58 -0800
>Brett Cornwall via aur-general <aur-general at lists.archlinux.org> wrote:
>
>> On 2021-12-28 12:08, Doug Newgard via aur-general wrote:
>> >On Tue, 28 Dec 2021 09:21:01 -0800
>> >Brett Cornwall via aur-general <aur-general at lists.archlinux.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Feel free to post an RFC. In the meantime, I'll continue to follow
>> >> the rules that have been established.
>> >
>> >Established where? Upstream builds as -bin packages were fine in the AUR for
>> >years, it's only recently that a couple of TUs have decided to disallow it.
>>
>> Established in the AUR submission guidelines [1], which has been quoted
>> thrice now:
>>
>> > 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 out-of-date, flag it as such.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.
>>
>
>The point of this section is to prevent people from uploading updated version
>of repo PKBGUILDs because they're impatient. That's why it specifically talks
>about that. You may interpret it differently, but that's not how it was
>meant or how it has been done in the past.
>
>You'll also note that it gives exceptions for software that's build
>differently, different options/libs/etc. That would easily cover this case, as
>upstream will NOT be building it the same way as Arch.

Ah, cool, so we can have infinite different builds of software already 
released in the official repos because they're technically built for 
different distribution methods? -bin, -appimage-bin, -flatpak-bin, 
-guix-bin, -docker-bin?

Should we just do away with deletion requests entirely except for the 
illegal/malicious packages? Condoning the AUR as a literal dumping 
ground of binary distributions is fine (I guess) so long as we're on the 
same page.

Clearly, I'm not the only one interpreting this "incorrectly" as these 
are not infrequent requests. So while we may be wrong it behooves us to 
update the Wiki to *explicitly allow* these kinds of packages. "Someone 
affiliated with the project built this for us" is not a valid feature to 
be an exception in my (and a few other TUs') opinions. Let's RFC this.
-------------- 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/20211228/67a19506/attachment-0001.sig>