On Mon, 6 Dec 2010 07:32:51 +0100 Lukáš Jirkovský <[email protected]> wrote: > On 6 December 2010 03:42, keenerd <[email protected]> wrote: > > Thanks for all the input. I'm pushing the posts now and it should > > be done in a few hours. For now it is just doing a single pass, > > but in the future I'll set it up to track the RSS. > > > > There is a lot of fun stuff in the AUR. More stats later. For now, > > here is my favorite: > > > > 472 packages had a single PNG. 1 package had 100 PNGs. > > > > For more fun, try to find the bot. He's tagging 4% of packages, so > > it should not be too hard. > > > > -Kyle > > http://kmkeen.com > > > > I just got spammed by your bot. You should really omit the warning for > png's. It should be easy to change your script only to check whether > file output contains "ELF", "executable" or "shared object". To > paraphrase your message "I think you can do better." > > Anyway, this makes me think that the current AUR guidelines should be > more clear about this issue. To be more precise I mean this part: > > After logging in to the AUR web interface, a user can submit a gzipped > tarball (.tar.gz) of a directory containing build files for a package. > The directory inside the tarball should contain a PKGBUILD, any > .install files, patches, etc. (ABSOLUTELY no binaries). > > I'm pretty sure binaries originally referred to executables and > libraries (which are in fact executables). My proposal is to change > this sentence accordingly. Either use "ABSOLUTELY no executables" or > "ABSOLUTELY no binaries except for icons." > > Also it should be mentioned in Arch Packaging Standards. > > opinions?
Hm yes that sounds far more elegant than the proposal I wrote this morning and sent just a couple of minutes ago. -- Jabber: [email protected] Blog: http://atsutane.freethoughts.de/ Key: 295AFBF4 FP: 39F8 80E5 0E49 A4D1 1341 E8F9 39E4 F17F 295A FBF4
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
