On 12/04/2010 03:16 AM, Simon Stoakley wrote:
The day was 03/12/10 21:24 when , Xyne had this to say......:
On 2010-12-03 20:33 +0100 (48:5)
Stefan Husmann wrote:
Am 03.12.2010 19:46, schrieb keenerd:
Officially, the tarballs uploaded to the AUR should be named after
their package, contain a directory named after their package, contain
no dot files and most importantly contain no binaries. Officially,
these requirements are very important.
Here are a bunch of non-conforming packages. Maybe 90% of them. (A
few errors slip though my scanner.)
Of the +700 packages with binaries, most are a simple desktop icon.
Should these be base64 encoded if someone can't find hosting?
If no one can think of a better way to deal with the nonconforming
packages, I'll write a bot to post insulting comments. Personally, I
really like this solution. The AUR has always had a wild west
frontier / insane asylum feel to it. The less regulation, the better
it works. But a few well placed suggestions could help make the two
thousand maintainers do a better job.
-Kyle
http://kmkeen.com
Hello,
I think, icon files should be tolerated, and always have been (since
I use
Arch Linux), if there is a desktop file and no downloadable icon
delivered
upstream. Having desktop files which point to an icon but not having the
icon itself does not make much sense to me.
Yes, taken verbatim, icons fall under binaries. But the spirit behind
the
restriction is that binaries often meen "executable binaries" which are
virtually always downloadable or build by the makepkg step.
Regards Stefan
I agree with Stefan. Also, base64 encoding files would only increase
the size
of the package (however insignificantly) without any benefit.
The "no binaries" rule really means "don't include compiled files,
large files,
sandwiches, or anything else that shouldn't be in here" :P
I to hope that icons as ok, I've tested base64 encoding with ine of my
pkg's that has an icon in and the size increased by over a third (from
60223 B to 82412 B). Also worth mentioning is that i only included the
icon when someone requested a .desktop file, and as Stefan mentioned
they're a bit 'off' with no matching icon.
If no one can think of a better way to deal with the nonconforming
packages, I'll write a bot to post insulting comments. Personally, I
really like this solution.
Please don't send me horrible comments!
If anyone's interested I used this site for the encoding.
http://www.motobit.com/util/base64-decoder-encoder.asp
The raw icon data gets encoded to approx. 4/3 of it's original size.
This is because base64 encodes 3 bytes to 4 printable characters.
(And it's only approximately 4/3 because the data is padded to have
a size that is a multiple of 3. You may have noticed the '=' at the end
of the encoded string)
--
freenode/pyropeter "12:50 - Ich drücke Return."
