Hello Amor, would you mind confirming whether you made this AUR package
before offical repository adotped it.
If not, just ignore the following things.
> The submitted PKGBUILDs must not build applications **already** in any of
> the official binary repositories under any circumstances.
This is what the wiki says.
> They did not take maintainership over an existing PKGBUILD, they wrote
> a new one from scratch, and disabled the AUR repo, as is custom when
> software already exists in official repos.
>
> Martin
>
> On Mon, Oct 21, 2024 at 5:10 PM Óscar García Amor <ogarcia@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I don't understand how
1. The submitted PKGBUILDs must not build applications **already** in any of
the official binary repositories under any circumstances.
2. It is custom when software **already** exists in official repos should be
deleted
can infer that it is reasonable to delete the AUR package in this situation. I
think this logic is wrong and this description makes no sense to deny what
Amor requests.
If it is just because the crediting is not explicitly documented, so we don't
have to do this, (It does not mean your logic is right, either) I think it's
time for us to start a discussion on this. At least, I think we should add a
*recommendation* in documentation on crediting the AUR maintaner. I think this
is the actual **custom** of open source software.
I don't know why adding a credit is unnecessary in logic. Not to mention in
emotion, which I think matters much more than any logic in this case (I admit
I'm very unprofessional on this).
Whatever, I vote on making a credit to AUR maintainers, who made contribution
to who ever used it and now his work is totally swiped on the website. Because
I get happier to use their AUR.
