[aur-requests] [PRQ#10039] Deletion Request for visual-studio-code

Alad Wenter alad at mailbox.org
Mon Dec 18 22:10:34 UTC 2017

> Duru Can Celasun <can at dcc.im> hat am 18. Dezember 2017 um 21:33 geschrieben:
> On Mon, 18 Dec 2017, at 21:23, Earnestly via aur-requests wrote:
> > Let's hope the open source package will adopt the appropriate name
> > instead of having to hack around a packager who claimed it instead of
> > properly using a -bin suffix to denote the package type in the first
> > place.
> As I've said here [1], here [2] and here [3] (and Microsoft said here
> [4]) the open source package is not allowed to use the name Visual
> Studio in any way. Therefore it needs to be renamed to "code",
> "microsoft-code" or something similar.  So the open source package is
> named inappropriately, regardless of how I named the original package.
That comment in [4] by Microsoft is as opaque as it gets. Where do they explicitely disallow the use of "Visual Studio Code" for "non-branded" builds? And if they do, why is their README still using "Visual Studio Code - Open Source"? There's a pull request from 6 months ago to clarify this [6], but it was not addressed.

> Finally, when a package is binary only (i.e there is no indication an
> open source version does or will exist), not using a -bin suffix is
> perfectly acceptable. See steam [5] in the offical repositories.
_Every_ package in the official repositories is binary by definition, so you can't apply that logic to the AUR.

> [1]
> https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-requests/2017-December/021155.html
> [2]
> https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-requests/2017-December/021158.html
> [3]
> https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-requests/2017-December/021159.html
> [4] https://github.com/Microsoft/vscode/issues/60#issuecomment-161792005
> [5] https://www.archlinux.org/packages/multilib/x86_64/steam
[6] https://github.com/Microsoft/vscode/pull/28736

More information about the aur-requests mailing list