Clarification on policy regarding "configuration only" packages.

ender4 · 2025-09-14 21:18:35

The AUR submission guidelines state that:

The AUR and official repositories are intended for packages which install general software and software-related content, including one or more of the following: executable(s); configuration file(s); ...

However, an AUR package I recently created received a deletion request because it was "configuration only". I haven't been able to find any policy documents that say that configuration-only packages aren't allowed, and the quote above would seem to indicate that they are allowed. Am I missing something?

mpan · 2025-09-15 00:27:01

This is a non-authoritative reply.

Consider the difference between packages that:

Change configuration.
Offer files that the user may re-use in their configuration.

… and, separately, think of the scenarios of:

The submitter sharing their own configuration, one they just subjectively happen to like.
Offering some upstream’s configuration package, useful for the general-audience.

Lone_Wolf · 2025-09-15 10:03:00

Forum is not the right place to get authorative answers for such questions, try asking on aur-general ML

seth · 2025-09-15 14:15:34

Authoritative logic: don't package your dotfiles.

Configurations reflecting personal preferences would typically go into $HOME, but $HOME is outside the pacman domain.
Circumventing this by moving ~/.config/stuff to /etc/stuff de-facto creates a single user system and while you can do that on your box, it's not a universally "correct" approach.

There was apparently some mass-cleanup on that pattern; if you feel your package was incorrectly objected you should probably appeal that.

Rule of thumb (authumbtoritative):
Does your config exemplify the solution to a software problem/conflict/etc that's not addressed in the wiki?
=> explain the approach in the wiki

Is your config still useful to someone who thinks that you're an artistic cretin with no taste and no style and probably better off dressing yourself blindfolded?
=> sounds like a rather valid AUR package to me.

Is your config liked by five dudes on r/unixporn?
=> post it on r/unixporn

Muflone · 2025-09-20 18:41:31

ender4 wrote:

an AUR package I recently created received a deletion request because it was "configuration only"

I believe your request refers to a specific AUR package I know. As you haven't mentioned such package I respect your choice so I'll explain it in general terms:

- that specific package doesn't refer to any external project at all, so it's not a software itself
- that specific package simply contains a single configuration file with only 4 lines
- that specific package hosted the configuration file in the AUR
- that specific package configuration file contained duplicated settings already shipped by another package in the official repositories (violating the rule 1.1.1)
- also being a duplicated setting already shipped by another package it will automatically quality itself as a package not useful (violating the rule 1.1.3)
- being a very specialized configuration file, it violated again another part of the rule 1.1.3

If your intention was to have such settings for a minimal system, this would be a very specialized setting for your taste, ok, but not for AUR.

So for a general authoritative answer to your question about the submission guidelines: first of all packages must be useful.

Useful means not only useful for yourself (the wiki clarifies this) but also for other users, a package changing your preferences to your taste is not useful, it simply changes the things in a different way. There are infinite ways the settings can be changed/mixed and they don't deserve a package in the AUR.

Also, apart being useful, packages must meet the interest of other users. A very specialized package may be useful but may be not interesting for other users.
We have the wiki for the configuration tweaks and changes some users could find useful, but not enough to deserve a package.

Configuration files for your personal taste are otherwise called dotfiles (regardless being in /etc, /usr or /home). The package I'm refering to was a mere dotfiles package whose settings were also duplicated from another official package.

Best regards

Last edited by Muflone (2025-09-20 18:59:06)

ender4 · 2025-09-22 08:34:54

seth wrote:

if you feel your package was incorrectly objected you should probably appeal that.

How would I go about appealing it? I don't think I will in this case, but the email came from a `no-reply` email address, and there were no instructions on how I could contest it, or ask for more details. And all my searching was able to turn up was that there was an aur-requests mailing list

Muflone wrote:

If your intention was to have such settings for a minimal system

My intention was to make the systemd presets consistent with the services that archlinux enables by default. See https://gitlab.archlinux.org/archlinux/ … equests/14. I intended this not as a personal preference, but as a workaround for what I consider to be a bug in the systemd package, which, unfortunately, cannot be fixed in a backwards compatible way.

Muflone wrote:

Useful means not only useful for yourself (the wiki clarifies this) but also for other users

I believed that it would be useful to other people, that is why I added it to the AUR. But it's impossible to really know if that is the case until people actually do (or don't) use it.

Muflone wrote:

a package changing your preferences to your taste is not useful

It can be the case that someone's "preferences" are generally useful to many other people. If you don't want to allow configuration-only packages, that's fine, but then I think the wiki should explicitly call that out.

I read through the guidelines before posting the package, and sincerely believed that my package me the rules for submission. Then my package was requested to be deleted with barely any explanation, and the explanation given didn't seem to be a violation of the submission guidelines, and there wasn't any clear path to contest the request or ask for more details. I won't fight this deletion, but the experience was pretty frustrating.

seth · 2025-09-22 08:50:41

https://lists.archlinux.org/archives/li … linux.org/ - though you've apparently now Muflone's attention anyway.

https://gitlab.archlinux.org/archlinux/ … equests/14

Ah.
Wiki.
Beyond any shadow of my doubt.
Because this requires context explanation/understanding of the implications etc et pp, references to the bug, maybe the BBS thread discussing all the pros and cons.
Regardless of the question in the OP, "here click this, see what it does" seems a terribly bad idea for this change specifically.

Muflone · 2025-09-22 20:44:21

ender4 wrote:

I intended this not as a personal preference, but as a workaround for what I consider to be a bug in the systemd package, which, unfortunately, cannot be fixed in a backwards compatible way.

If there's a bug somewhere, it should be fixed in the package or in the software, not with a separated package which alters the configuration to defeat the bug.
However this issue is to me a bit vague and I'm not convinced if it should be fixed.

I strongly believe this type of settings should find their place on the Wiki not on some random AUR packages.

ender4 wrote:

I believed that it would be useful to other people, that is why I added it to the AUR. But it's impossible to really know if that is the case until people actually do (or don't) use it.

The wiki states:

Will anyone else want to use this package? Is it extremely specialized? If more than a few people would find this package useful, it is appropriate for submission.

We upload packages on the AUR if they are meaningful for other people. This package seemed to me a very specialized package, a particular setting only very few people would ever use, also, those few people maybe would prefer to alter the settings based on their taste.

Another reason to me to prefer the wiki documentation, explain how it works, what is the issue with the standard settings, how to change them and what are the benefits. Instead the AUR package merely was installing some new settings and nothing more, with zero explanation, zero support, zero help for users, including the package description was so vague to result impossible to understand what was that package for.

ender4 wrote:

Then my package was requested to be deleted with barely any explanation, and the explanation given didn't seem to be a violation of the submission guidelines, and there wasn't any clear path to contest the request or ask for more details. I won't fight this deletion, but the experience was pretty frustrating.

Please see the Package Requests paragraph on https://aur.archlinux.org/

We cannot allow anyone to upload their settings on the AUR, each user has his preferences and AUR is not a personal repository for settings but instead is a repository for building your packages which must be useful for multiple people.

This is the reason the personal dotfiles package are going to be removed, unless they become popular. Many projects on github/gitlab host their dotfiles, then later when they become popular then an AUR package is uploaded.

Don't get me wrong please, I have nothing against your package, I beg everyone, please keep AUR a clean place, use the wiki to document things, explain and let user to understand how things work in order to setup them how they prefer. We cannot have a package per each personal taste, with the hope such package will result useful for other people in the future.

Thanks for your understanding

Arch Linux

#1 2025-09-14 21:18:35

Clarification on policy regarding "configuration only" packages.

#2 2025-09-15 00:27:01

Re: Clarification on policy regarding "configuration only" packages.

#3 2025-09-15 10:03:00

Re: Clarification on policy regarding "configuration only" packages.

#4 2025-09-15 14:15:34

Re: Clarification on policy regarding "configuration only" packages.

#5 2025-09-20 18:41:31

Re: Clarification on policy regarding "configuration only" packages.

#6 2025-09-22 08:34:54

Re: Clarification on policy regarding "configuration only" packages.

#7 2025-09-22 08:50:41

Re: Clarification on policy regarding "configuration only" packages.

#8 2025-09-22 20:44:21

Re: Clarification on policy regarding "configuration only" packages.

Board footer