Hi,
Scimmia pointed me to [1] in answer of a request by me on forum. I
re-read the page and realised the exception to the first rule leaves
some things open.
text quoted from wiki for reference :
* The submitted PKGBUILDs must not build applications *already in any*
of the *official* binary *repositories* under any circumstances.
Check the official package database
<https://www.archlinux.org/packages/> 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package is out-of-date, flag it as such.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
<https://bugs.archlinux.org/>.
*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.
The package types listed below are in AUR and appear to be allowed but
are not mentioned in the exception .
- packages that *remove *features.
example : mesa-noglvnd[2] disables glvnd support but is otherwise the
same as extra/mesa of the same upstream version .
Maybe change the wording to clarify this ?
- VCS packages building trunk master or specific branches
example : gcc-git [3]
The PKGBUILD is very similar to repo version, but it does build trunk
master.
Are they considered to have 'patches' or should they be mentioned
specifically ?
- VCS packages building a specific commit or revision
(Sorry, can't find an example atm.)
Usually these are considered 'stable' versions. Are they seen as
packages having patches or should they have their own rule ?
Suppose we have 2 packages of this type :
A builds a commit that matches exactly with latest released version, B
builds some commit without a tag or label..
In my opinion A violates rule#1, but I'm unsure about B.
How do we make the difference clear ?
- Older versions of repo packages
There are plenty of older versions of repo packages in AUR . Just search
for gcc or llvm.
I don't see anything in the exception that applies to these packages.
Lone_Wolf
[1] https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/AUR_submission_guidelines
[2] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/mesa-noglvnd
[3] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/gcc-git/
