You are not logged in.
Hey guys!
I used to maintain two AUR packages that were working as meta-packages for the whole `base` and `base-devel` groups: `base-meta` and `base-devel-meta`.
`base-meta` was removed when core/base was added, and I'm really happy about it.
`base-devel-meta` was removed yesterday. The comment saying:
This package does not respect the submission guidelines.
What rule was it breaking?
I skimmed through the AUR submission guidelines and Arch package guidelines, but couldn't see what was wrong.
I wish to have a meta-package for the whole `base-devel` group.
Should I keep my `base-devel-meta` locally or what?
Offline
First rule:
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.
Offline
I think that a meta-package that is replicating a group is a gray area in that rule...
Offline
First rule:
The submitted PKGBUILDs must not build applications already in any of the official binary repositories under any circumstances.
A Meta-package does not build anything. So it's not breaking that rule.
Offline
It does build a package, otherwise there would be not PKGBUILD. Nothing is compiled, but that is not part of the quoted criterion.
Last edited by Trilby (2019-10-13 11:53:29)
"UNIX is simple and coherent..." - Dennis Ritchie, "GNU's Not UNIX" - Richard Stallman
Offline
Part of the first rule was omitted in the quote above:
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.
I wish to install the `base-devel` packages through a meta-package, rather than explicitly installing each of the ones currently in that group. This feature isn't available without `base-devel-meta`.
Last edited by peoro (2019-10-13 13:15:05)
Offline
Is your purpose in this thread to seek clarificaion on the reason a package was removed, or to appeal the removal? This is the wrong place for the latter.
I'm not sure it's the right place for the former either, but there's no point making your case here.
Last edited by Trilby (2019-10-13 13:27:25)
"UNIX is simple and coherent..." - Dennis Ritchie, "GNU's Not UNIX" - Richard Stallman
Offline
The aur-general mailing list would be a better place for either of these discussions. TUs (the group/meta-package responsible for the AUR) are much more likely to see such a discussion there.
Closing.
Sakura:-
Mobo: MSI MAG X570S TORPEDO MAX // Processor: AMD Ryzen 9 5950X @4.9GHz // GFX: AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT // RAM: 32GB (4x 8GB) Corsair DDR4 (@ 3000MHz) // Storage: 1x 3TB HDD, 6x 1TB SSD, 2x 120GB SSD, 1x 275GB M2 SSD
Making lemonade from lemons since 2015.
Offline