On Fri, Dec 17, 2021 at 8:31 PM Brett Cornwall via aur-general <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 If the official package is out-of-date, flag 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
So in this case the package would be fine if it had a different name, with a suffix like -upstream-bin, -official-bin or -static-bin?
