On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 03:58:25AM +0800, Ray Rashif wrote: > On 6 December 2010 22:47, Dave Reisner <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 03:20:06PM +0100, Heiko Baums wrote: > >> In most cases there's a reason for having binaries, icons and the like > >> in a package. And whether such a package actually has a bad quality or > >> its contents are necessary can't be decided by a bot. > > > > In _all_ cases, binaries are not permissable as stated by the AUR > > guidelines [1]. Your opinion doesn't change this. A proposal to amend the > > guidelines can. > > Binaries here means binary executables. Nobody told us to read between > the lines to pick out technical file types (of which an image file > would be a 'binary file').
Fair enough. I took the strict interpretation of this -- non human readable files, including but not limited to: compiled code, images, tarballs, etc. Limiting to binary executables makes a bit more sense. dave
