On Fri, 17 Dec 2021 07:01:08 -0800 Brett Cornwall via aur-general <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 2021-12-17 09:54, Filipe Laíns via aur-general wrote: > >On Fri, 2021-12-17 at 00:17 +0100, Justin Kromlinger via aur-general wrote: > >> On Fri, 17 Dec 2021 01:05:19 +0200 > >> silentnoodle via aur-general <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> > hey all, > >> > > >> > Today a package i co maintain (telegram-desktop-bin) was deleted because > >> > "Package exists in official community repo", but since we used prebuilt > >> > binary as source I did not think that would have applied. > >> > > >> > So guess I'd just like a word on what the first point in the rules of > >> > submission means: > >> > https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/AUR_submission_guidelines#Rules_of_submission > >> > > >> > Cheers, Ben a.k.a silentnoodle > >> > >> So basically: > >> * telegram-desktop in community is git release 3.3.0 build by Arch > >> Maintainers > >> * telegram-desktop-bin in AUR is git release 3.3.0 build by upstream > >> > >> For the end user, those two are basically the same package. Therefore the > >> AUR > >> package is a > >> duplicate. > >> > > > >No, they aren't. I haven't looked into the request but if this is indeed the > >case, the package was incorrectly deleted. > > From the rules of submission [1]: > > > The submitted PKGBUILDs must not build applications already in any of > > the official binary repositories under any circumstances. Check the > > official package database for the package. If any version of it exists, > > do not submit the package. If the official package is out-of-date, flag > > it as such. If the official package is broken or is lacking a feature, > > then please file a bug report. > > > Exception to this strict rule may only be packages having extra > > features enabled and/or patches in comparison to the official ones. In > > such an occasion the pkgname should be different to express that > > difference. For example, a package for GNU screen containing the > > sidebar patch could be named screen-sidebar. Additionally the > > provides=('screen') array should be used in order to avoid conflicts > > with the official package. > > Submitting a package that is only different from the technicality that > someone else built it is not enough to warrant its own package. If > there's an issue with the telegram package in the repos, users should > submit a bug report. > > As it stands, there was nothing notated in the package to suggest that > it was anything but an upstream binary, so that was why I deleted it. > > [1] > https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/AUR_submission_guidelines#Rules_of_submission The upstream build is vastly different from the repos. Besides lacking bugs in the downstream version, it only has a fraction of the dependencies (i.e. no pipewire). As such I see no valid reason for the deletion. Alad -- alad <[email protected]>
