On 20 December 2013 04:20, WorMzy Tykashi <wormzy.tyka...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 19 December 2013 18:44, Rashif Ray Rahman <sc...@archlinux.org> wrote: >> Just provide for and conflict with the relevant packages and you don't >> give anyone any trouble. > > It's halfway there, it doesn't conflict with or provide theharvester > package, though that's something I was going to mention when I comment > about some changes they should make to the PKGBUILD (shouldn't be an > 'any' package, binaries shouldn't be in /usr/sbin, etc.). I just > wanted to check that such packages are allowed before prompting them > to fix it up. > >> But if this whole thing is a package of a real >> software collection (and not just a mash-up by a packager) then I see >> no problem. > > It's the latter, the package pulls from two different, unrelated > sources and merges them into one package. The only thing is, neither > source is otherwise available on the AUR or official repositories (as > far as I can tell).
A better way to rephrase what I meant is this: if it's a useful bundle that people will use (if some people find the beta dep better), then there is no problem. The "Arch way" would be to provide a separate package for the beta dep instead, but you can tell if your idea (of bundling) is working if nobody says anything about that. -- GPG/PGP ID: C0711BF1