I'm going to retract what I said earlier about the old package design being acceptable. We should not try and circumvent intentional Blackmagic design, whether it's technically permitted by the TOS or not.
> Therefore, strictly speaking, according to AUR guidelines, > the package shouldn’t be available in any other form. I agree. To be honest, I don't see that the package is currently adding enough utility beyond a manual installation to warrant being a package in the first place. > Having to locally download files shouldn't be breaking behavior for > a user when using AUR Packages as best practice expects the user to > confront themselves with the content of the PKGBUILD anyway. This > includes to take notice of additional requirements such as the file > that is locally required. One can expect so much effort to put in > by the user. Well, the AUR package is still supposed to be a package right? I feel like the fact that users should read a pkgbuild isn't an excuse to insert additional friction into the package. AUR packages are supposed to have some utility, otherwise they wouldn't exist. > What I would suggest is that someone with “clout” in the Arch Linux > community (at least someone with an `@archlinux.org` email address) get > in touch with Blackmagic Design and explain the situation +1. Alternately maybe it can be Muflone who writes the email, but in general I think this is a good idea. Sam
