Thank you for bringing this up. Current guidelines for packages using
prebuilt binaries, which are added in 2019 [1], are indeed unclear
about Java packages. Literally, there is no rule about whether such
Java packages should use a package name with "-bin" suffix or not. I
propose to require the "-bin" suffix for new Java package using
prebuilt binaries while allow existing packages without the "-bin"
suffix (i.e., no need to submit deletion/merge requests for them).
A modified rule can be:
* Packages that use '''prebuilt'''
[[wikipedia:Deliverable|deliverables]], when the sources are
available, must use the {{ic|-bin}} suffix. An exception to this is
with [[Java package guidelines#Java packaging on Arch Linux|Java]],
where new Java packages using prebuilt binaries must use the
{{ic|-bin}} suffix, while existing such packages without the
{{ic|-bin}} suffix are allowed. The AUR should not contain the binary
tarball created by makepkg, nor should it contain the filelist.
Any opinions?
[1] https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php?diff=572792
Best,
Chih-Hsuan Yen (yan12125)
---------- Forwarded message ---------
寄件者： Marcell Meszaros <[email protected]>
Date: 2023年7月30日 週日 下午10:00
Subject: Re: [PRQ#42786] Deletion Request for autopsy-bin Rejected
To: Chih-Hsuan Yen <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>
Cc: <[email protected]>
>autopsy-bin is a better package name for a package built from
>binaries.
In that case, please kindly revise the AUR submission guidelines,
because currently it explicitly mentions Java as an exception to the
'-bin' name suffix requirement. [a]
"
* Packages that use prebuilt deliverables, when the sources are
available, must use the -bin suffix. An exception to this is with
Java.
"
[a]:
https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/AUR_submission_guidelines#Rules_of_submission
On 30 July 2023 15:26:43 GMT+02:00, Chih-Hsuan Yen
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Marcell Meszaros <[email protected]> 於 2023年7月30日 週日 下午6:20寫道：
>>
>> @yan12125, why did you reject the deletion request for this duplicate?
>>
>> AUR/autopsy also uses the precompiled Java bytecode as source.
>>
>> So the two packages are truly duplicates, the only difference is that
>> autopsy-bin is 1 year older and flagged OOD for that period.
>>
>> On 30 July 2023 11:05:20 GMT+02:00, [email protected] wrote:
>> >Request #42786 has been Rejected by yan12125 [1]:
>> >
>> >> This is a java application so the
>> >suffix '-bin' is not necessary anyway.
>> >
>> >Java packages can be either built from sources or binaries as well.
>> >
>> >[1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/yan12125/
>
>autopsy-bin is a better package name for a package built from
>binaries. Therefore, orphaning and updating autospy-bin is better than
>deleting autospy-bin. After that, autospy can be merged into
>autospy-bin in case it is not changed to be built from sources.
>
>Best,
>
>Chih-Hsuan Yen (yan12125)
