You are not logged in.
I would like to package this:
https://github.com/jakemoroni/audio_async_loopback
The compiled binary name is audio_async_loopback.
I find underscore a bit awkward when typing app's name in Run command window, I'm used to hyphens.
Is it okay to call the aur package and binary audio-async-loopback? Couldn't find a straight explanation of this matter on wiki.
Last edited by mkkot (2022-02-20 12:56:11)
Offline
I would not recommend renaming the package and binary names. These points are worded a little more generally.
First cross compatibility across systems may be an issue i.e. a script working on Debian will not work on Arch (assuming debian packages this software). And renaming it later will break backward compatibility on Arch.
Secondly it could hurt search-ability. If a user wants to find said package on the AUR or on the web the mismatch could defer them from the existing package. I don't know about AUR helpers and their ability to fuzzy search, but AUR web seems to compensate for such cases.
Next is maintainability. You are diverging from upstream at that point and (in at least my experience) Arch packages tend to stay relatively close to upstream.
This introduces another point of maintenance on your part if e.g. upstream decides to change their build process. It is often easier to use the build process provided by upstream.
Tying into both is debug-ability. All users with problems are not able to directly use proposed solutions found on the web. (This may not be as pronounced in the Arch Forums, but still stands IMHO).
Also Bug reports will be more annoying to deal with, especially for upstream. As they will reference your binary name and not the official one.
All of those may not be applicable now (or maybe later) but you should have an answer to all these proposed problems.
You could have a second private PKGBUILD and use that on your system, that is what package relations are for.
Offline
I'd also agree with the above e.g. while unlikely for this particular project if stuff suddenly starts to rely on this as a dependency for any reason you'd suddenly have a different binary name. I'd say nothing speaks against you doing a wrapper and slapping that in your /usr/local/bin for your personal system, but you really shouldn't generally deviate from it for a package.
Offline
Thanks. That makes sense.
Offline