> At a quick glance it also seems to me, that the AUR version offers telemetry > and Discord integration,⁽¹⁾ while the Arch version doesn’t
Thanks for pointing this out. Then the yuzu-mainline-bin AUR package should continue to exist. > The community/yuzu package is built from sources, while the yuzu-mainline-bin > PKGBUILD offered in AUR is wrapping the official upstream build. > > To me this falls under the “extra features” exception. Being the official > upstream binary is an important feature not present in source-built version > found in Arch’s package. This I simply cannot agree with. Is upstream sprinkling magic dust on their build server? There is no inherent feature present based on who types the compilation commands. The only possible exception would be for non-open source software (like visual studio code) or cases (like yuzu) where the flags actually differ. But if the flags/environment are the same, and the only difference is using stuff like bundled vs system libraries, I can't agree. If system vs bundled libs is a substantial difference, then why even have distros? The whole point of having distros is making the packages play nice with each other. If you want the bundled version you can just download directly from the release page. But if the Arch PMs/community disagree with me, then I think this should be explicitly specified on the wiki as a separate exception, i.e. "-bin (upstream binary release) versions of packages in the official repos are also permitted in the AUR, since they are officially supported upstream (unlike the repo packages)." Otherwise we have conflicting messages when one PM deletes -bin packages and another doesn't. And it helps us as users not have to spend time guessing whether a package should exist or not and defending its existence, we can just point to the wiki. Best, éclairevoyant
