On Thu, Feb 17, 2022, at 14:22, Brett Cornwall via aur-general wrote: > On 2022-02-17 11:59, Ben Denhartog via aur-general wrote: >>No, it's pretty straightforward, but note that being "closed source" and/or >>"difficult to compile from source" are not qualifying factors for determining >>whether or not a package should be moved to community. >> >>I'm not arguing that `kind-bin` _should absolutely_ be moved to community, >>simply that the parameters you're asking about are not pertinent to whether >>or not it is. > > To be honest, I'm not sure what you're arguing here. Are you saying that > software being closed source or with significant compiling difficulty > would have no bearing on their inclusion into [community]. Are you > saying that you would rather bring in binary releases into the > repositories?
Ah, I get the issue. Yes, the AUR package is a binary package; no, if it were moved to community I would not be downloading the release binary but instead building from source in accordance with the Go Package Guidelines [0]. I replied off-the-cuff while in a meeting and completely glossed over that aspect of the discussion. [0]: https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Go_package_guidelines > (BTW, please do bottom post on Arch mailing lists :)) Good catch :) -- Ben Denhartog b...@sudoforge.com
