On Tue 25 Nov 2014 at 23:13, Daniel Albers wrote: > [...] > There are thousands of AUR packages that are variants of other packages > and I can't see any problem with that. In my understanding that's part > of what AUR is for. Is it not? > > It's been customary for AUR deletions, orphanings etc. to have a two > weeks grace period. Should that not also apply to TUs? > > The .tar.gz that you mentioned that violated the "no binaries on AUR" > rule contained nothing but ASCII files (as does customizepk¹). If I > unzip the tarball and re-upload it, does that not violate the rule? What > if I also untar it and upload each text file individually? > [...]
I am generally conservative when it comes to package deletions, but I saw this as having two big problems; being a duplicate of another AUR package, and including the tarball. The PKGBUILD was identical (apart from a version bump and pkgname/pkgbase). > The package was a patched version of customizepkg. You must have included a modified tarball then, as there were no patches. If you want to fork the project then host the source elsewhere; then it will not be seen as a duplicate package. The AUR is not for hosting projects, but for providing build files for packages. -- Jonathan Steel
