[aur-general] Clarification for Deletion request #30701

[eNV25]

On Fri, Dec 17, 2021 at 8:31 PM Brett Cornwall via aur-general
<aur-general at lists.archlinux.org> wrote:
>
>  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 If the official package is out-of-date, flag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

So in this case the package would be fine if it had a different name,
with a suffix like -upstream-bin, -official-bin or -static-bin?