Very much in agreement with Marek Küthe earlier response that this is hardly an appropriate answer to the question posed here, especially since they weren't asking for the package to be reverted necessarily but rather was asking for an elaboration of the Rules and Guidelines for the AUR.
While the reasoning given for the change, that a Package "must not contain black magic or unknown/hard to understand commands", is very much a great sentiment that I also think should be strifed for,it is basically impossible to be enforced standard as it can be very subjective what should be classified as an unknown/hard to understand command and what shouldn’t. Not to mention that that, as far as i can tell, it is not actually mentioned anywhere within the Arch package guidelines.(Correct me if I am wrong)
While the reasoning given for the change, that a Package "must not contain black magic or unknown/hard to understand commands", is very much a great sentiment that I also think should be strifed for,it is basically impossible to be enforced standard as it can be very subjective what should be classified as an unknown/hard to understand command and what shouldn’t. Not to mention that that, as far as i can tell, it is not actually mentioned anywhere within the Arch package guidelines.(Correct me if I am wrong)
Though I do believe that the current Implementation is more appropriate for the situation given, simply because trying to subvert and avoid a form intentionally put in place by the Upstream, certainly doesn’t seem in line with trying to “Working with upstream” section, regardless of if “the data entered here is never verified in anyway.” This is also the reasoning Muflone provides within the pinned comment on the Package stating: "Also bypassing the required information from the upstream URL is not allowed in an automated way."
There could be an argument made for the “DaVinci Resolve Studio” since it does include a button to skip the form entirely but that’s besides the point.
There could be an argument made for the “DaVinci Resolve Studio” since it does include a button to skip the form entirely but that’s besides the point.
As such to answer the question and while i do believe that the reason Muflone gave in direct response for the change are rather weak, I do personally think that the current Implementation is more in line with the AUR Guideline, even if what was implemented before wasn’t exactly in Violation of any Rules in specific.
Though in the end this is merely my opinion and is based on my very limited experience with the AUR.
With Best Regards
Though I do agree that the current Implimentation is more appropreate for the situation given, simply because trying to subvert and avoid
Gesendet: Freitag, 20. März 2026 um 00:21
Von: Polarian <[email protected]>
Betreff: Re: davinci-resolve no longer downloads the upstream package; was this actually an AUR rules violation?
This package is maintained by an Arch Developer, end of story.
Take care,
--
Polarian
Jabber/XMPP: [email protected]
