On 6/24/21 2:39 PM, Morten Linderud via aur-requests wrote: > On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 02:34:24PM -0400, Eli Schwartz via aur-requests > wrote:>> Well uhhhhh funny story that: >> >> https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/PKGBUILD#arch >> >> I know this is not listed in the rules of submission page, but it is in >> the general packaging guidelines, and it's not like we haven't been >> deleting packages in the past, for precisely this. The rationale being, >> the *Arch* User Repository is in theory supposed to be for packages >> which can be run on Arch. >> >> It's the same reason we delete Manjaro-specific packages. > > There is a difference between Manjaro, a derivative distribution, and someone > providing a port of our distribution adding PKGBUILDs to the AUR.
What is the difference here, other than "we like you more"?
No one has argued that AUR packages should not include arch=('aarch64')
or source_aarch64=(). And even my pacman-git PKGBUILD includes
pacman.conf.arm hardcoding ARM repositories and a gigantic and slightly
annoying to maintain loop
case $CARCH in
....
esac
to set up makepkg.conf with the right flags.
But this is in *addition* to providing x86_64 support for the package
listing.
I don't see any reason to permit "raspberrypi-udev" but forbid Manjaro's
pacman-mirrors script. Both of them are useless to Arch users, but do
something on another distro (ALARM is still considered !notarch, after all).
Other than explicitly and publicly playing favorites. Is that the
message we're trying to send?
--
Eli Schwartz
Bug Wrangler and Trusted User
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
