2012/5/11 Ruslan Nabioullin <rnabioullin@xxxxxxxxx>: > I believe that there should be more comprehensive, clear, and explicit > standards on what content is allowed to be installed by an AUR package. > There already exist two guidelines [1]: > > 1. usefulness: "Make sure the package is useful. Will anyone else want > to use this package? Is it extremely specialized? If more than a few > people would find this package useful, it is appropriate for submission." > > 2. IP, content type (?) restrictions: "For most cases, everything is > permitted, as long as you are in compliance with the licensing terms of > the software..." > > The former is acceptable because "usefulness" is inherently subjective. > The latter does state an important restriction regarding IP, but > implicitly assumes that only software is permissible for AUR packages, > when in fact there exist packages within the AUR which install only > non-executable data. > > I believe that it is overall community consensus that such packages are > permissible as long as they install documentation for a particular > software package, a set of *closely*-related software packages, or the > Archlinux distro as a whole (e.g., offline Archlinux wiki), and that > documentation not directly applicable to the aforementioned, any > standards (e.g., FHS, OFM), and any books (e.g., Pro Git) are outside > the scope of the AUR. > > Any ideas? Do these proposed standards accurately reflect community > consensus? > > [1] https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_User_Repository > > -Ruslan > > -- > Ruslan Nabioullin > rnabioullin@xxxxxxxxx > Your email sounded like AUR is only used to provide software documentation or books (except for non-free ones). I hope that's not your intention, as it is not accurate. Rafael
