Could the requester or a Package Maintainer clarify the duplicate standard being applied here?
The deletion request says “Changing release channel does not avoid it,” but cursor-nightly-bin also exists specifically because it tracks a different release channel from cursor-bin. If nightly is considered sufficiently distinct from stable, I do not understand why Cursor’s Early Access/Beta channel would be categorically treated as a duplicate. I agree that a package should be deleted if it downloads the exact same upstream artifact as an existing maintained package. But if the relevant distinction is upstream release channel, version stream, source URL, checksum, or update cadence, then Early Access seems meaningfully different from both stable and nightly. I am happy to update pkgdesc, comments, and provides/conflicts to make this clearer. But before deletion, I would appreciate clarification on why cursor-nightly-bin is acceptable while cursor-early-access-bin is not, assuming this package tracks a distinct upstream Early Access artifact/channel. On Wed, May 27, 2026 at 8:12 PM <[email protected]> wrote: > oech3 [1] filed a deletion request for cursor-early-access-bin [2]: > > Dupe of cursor-nightly-bin or cursor-bin . Changing release channel > does not avoid it. > > [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/oech3/ > [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/cursor-early-access-bin/
