Re: [aur-general] TU application for sudoforge

2022-02-17 Thread Ben Denhartog via aur-general
On Mon, Feb 7, 2022, at 17:07, Brett Cornwall via aur-general wrote: > On 2022-02-07 13:33, Ben Denhartog via aur-general wrote: - buildozer >>> >>> This seems to not use the AUR bazelisk package for building, but a >>> release from github? Why doesn't it use the AUR package? >> >>I like to

Re: [aur-general] TU application for sudoforge

2022-02-17 Thread Ben Denhartog via aur-general
On Thu, Feb 17, 2022, at 14:22, Brett Cornwall via aur-general wrote: > On 2022-02-17 11:59, Ben Denhartog via aur-general wrote: >>No, it's pretty straightforward, but note that being "closed source" and/or >>"difficult to compile from source" are not qualifying factors for determining

Re: [aur-general] TU application for sudoforge

2022-02-17 Thread Brett Cornwall via aur-general
On 2022-02-07 16:07, Brett Cornwall via aur-general wrote: On 2022-02-07 13:33, Ben Denhartog via aur-general wrote: - buildozer This seems to not use the AUR bazelisk package for building, but a release from github? Why doesn't it use the AUR package? I like to keep things simple for

Re: [aur-general] TU application for sudoforge

2022-02-17 Thread Ben Denhartog via aur-general
No, it's pretty straightforward, but note that being "closed source" and/or "difficult to compile from source" are not qualifying factors for determining whether or not a package should be moved to community. I'm not arguing that `kind-bin` _should absolutely_ be moved to community, simply

Re: [aur-general] TU application for sudoforge

2022-02-17 Thread Fabio Loli via aur-general
Il 29/01/22 23:27, Ben Denhartog via aur-general ha scritto: > # AUR packages that I'll move to community [...] - kind (`kind-bin`) Hello, kind is open source and hosted on github, is there any problem compiling it from source?