[aur-general] Clarification for Deletion request #30701

[Brett Cornwall]

On 2022-01-01 05:33, Xyne via aur-general wrote:
>On 2021-12-28 19:52 -0800
>Brett Cornwall via aur-general wrote:
>
>>On 2021-12-29 03:27, eNV25 via aur-general wrote:
>>>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?
>>
>>I am working with the others to see what we want to establish going
>>forward. Thanks for the patience.
>
>I hope that we all agree on the following rules:
>
>* All packages built from pre-compiled sources in the AUR should retain the
>  "-bin" suffix to indicate this, without exception.
>
>* A package named <name>-bin should be functionally equivalent to one
>  named <name> once built.
>
>* Package variants should use names that identify them, e.g. a statically
>  pre-compiled variant of foo should be named foo-static-bin.
>
>The crux of the problem is which variants of official packages should be allowed
>in the AUR, if any. Pre-compiled packages from upstream that use different build
>options clearly have upstream support, and they avoid possibly lengthy
>compilations for users who wish to use those options. I think that they should
>be allowed.
>
>However, packages that build from source using different build options should
>not. The user can already obtain and modify the official PKGBUILD from ABS
>without the AUR. It would only clutter the AUR to allow all possible
>combinations of build options for every package, official or not. Users are
>expected to be able to modify a PKGBUILD to suit their needs.
>
>I therefore suggest that we allow correctly-named pre-compiled variants of
>official packages provided that the pre-compiled binaries are built by
>upstream, while still disallowing all other variants of official packages.
>
>Regards,
>Xyne
>
>And happy new year!
>

Would you be kind enough to post that to the thread I started over on 
aur-dev? (message ID <20211229050623.2jghonze56wi4fxe at faun>, subject 
"Packaging upstream binaries when we already have official releases")

To me, it's important to have it in writing what we agree on so we don't 
have these issues again.

Happy new year to you as well. :)
-------------- 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/20211231/5e308c49/attachment.sig>