"the upstream one has aggressively malicious post_install scripts, and we remove them."
"but the compiled binaries are probably fine. Good luck!"
]]>eschwartz wrote:If upstream provides a pacman package, there is zero justification for uploading a -bin package.
What if the upstream package does dodgy shit like installing things to $HOME in postinst?
...Asking for a friend.
... uh.
Fine, you win. Or lose? I'm not sure.
The only thing I'm sure of is that upstream should probably be avoided as bad for your health, regardless of who produces the built package.
(If there is a PKGBUILD that has this rationale, I would definitely mention it in a comment in the PKGBUILD. Something like "Astoundingly, this PKGBUILD actually does something useful by repackaging an upstream pkg.tar -- the upstream one has aggressively malicious post_install scripts, and we remove them.")
]]>If upstream provides a pacman package, there is zero justification for uploading a -bin package.
What if the upstream package does dodgy shit like installing things to $HOME in postinst?
...Asking for a friend.
]]>-bin packages are NOT for repackaging pacman package archives, they are for converting upstream prebuilt binaries that aren't in pacman format, into pacman format. If upstream provides a pacman package, there is zero justification for uploading a -bin package.
That was my first thought too and what I am still inclined to do, but I nevertheless am weighing it against the benefit of making it available in the AUR. Ideally the upstream package should be provided in a repo, and the current AUR package should use upsteam's PKGBUILD directly. Repackaging an existing pacman package is an ugly hack, but it's not substantially different from repackaging a .deb or other package format.
But yeah, it should probably be removed. It may be worth bringing up on aur-general so that we can clarify and agree on a rule.
]]>And then add a pinned comment with the details on enabling that custom repo.
-bin packages are NOT for repackaging pacman package archives, they are for converting upstream prebuilt binaries that aren't in pacman format, into pacman format. If upstream provides a pacman package, there is zero justification for uploading a -bin package.
]]>Trilby perhaps the question should have been why use a PKGBUILD that extracts and repacks an already built pacman package?
A question which I have now asked on the AUR. The package needs to be renamed to linux-nitrous-bin if they want to do that. I suppose it's just to have it on the AUR, but the redundancy irks me.
]]>anybody use this kernel?
Yes.
As there is no remaining content after pruning that pointless query I'm not sure if this should be marked as SOLVED as there is nothing left to work on, or if it should be deleted as an empty post.
Care to try again to post your actual question?
]]>