[arch-general] Package guidelines 📦
I want to suggest including all or some of these in the package guidelines <https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_package_guidelines>, or the appropriate documentation: *New items:* - Write your PKGBUILD in a way that will work by itself as long as possible, for example by automatically generating the list of archives instead of hard coding them. - As far as practicable don't work around bugs on the package, but fix them as upstream as possible. - In package() "mv" locally built files, and "cp" or "install" the rest. - In pkgdesc don't describe what the package is, but rather what it does. Using a natural wording that any person will understand. For example don't say "GTK UVC video viewer", but "Captures image from a webcam". - If the license is a Creative Commons one, write it like "CCPL:by-sa". *Modifications:* - Start new variables and functions names with a capital letter, to avoid clashes with those in makepkg itself. - In pkgver(), any printf() line shall finish with the new line char (\n). *Useful functions:* In package(), you can set permissions recursively with: find "${pkgdir}" -type d -exec chmod u=rwx,g=rx,o=rx {} \; find "${pkgdir}" -type f -exec chmod u=rw,g=r,o=r {} \; chmod +x "${pkgdir}/usr/bin/${Name}" In pkgver(), you can get the version from a web-site with something like this: curl --silent "${url}" | grep "${string}" | cut --delimiter='"' --fields=1 (Reply to this email including me on the recipients list, or I won't receive it)
On 2019-10-14 16:48, Alberto Salvia Novella via arch-general wrote:
- Start new variables and functions names with a capital letter, to avoid clashes with those in makepkg itself.
Isn't there an existing convention to use an underscore prefix (`_pkgname`) for this? /Emil
On 10/14/19 4:48 PM, Alberto Salvia Novella via arch-general wrote:
I want to suggest including all or some of these in the package guidelines <https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_package_guidelines>, or the appropriate documentation:
*New items:*
- Write your PKGBUILD in a way that will work by itself as long as possible, for example by automatically generating the list of archives instead of hard coding them.
What
- As far as practicable don't work around bugs on the package, but fix them as upstream as possible.
- In package() "mv" locally built files, and "cp" or "install" the rest.
?
- In pkgdesc don't describe what the package is, but rather what it does. Using a natural wording that any person will understand. For example don't say "GTK UVC video viewer", but "Captures image from a webcam".
This is wrong
- If the license is a Creative Commons one, write it like "CCPL:by-sa".
*Modifications:*
- Start new variables and functions names with a capital letter, to avoid clashes with those in makepkg itself.
This directly conflicts with our existing package etiquette[1]
- In pkgver(), any printf() line shall finish with the new line char (\n).
*Useful functions:*
In package(), you can set permissions recursively with: find "${pkgdir}" -type d -exec chmod u=rwx,g=rx,o=rx {} \; find "${pkgdir}" -type f -exec chmod u=rw,g=r,o=r {} \; chmod +x "${pkgdir}/usr/bin/${Name}"
This is universally stupid. Sometimes permissions exist for a reason...
In pkgver(), you can get the version from a web-site with something like this: curl --silent "${url}" | grep "${string}" | cut --delimiter='"' --fields=1
No, you may not curl a remote for a version string. pkgver is ran *after* source acquisition.
(Reply to this email including me on the recipients list, or I won't receive it)
Too bad(?!) - Subscribe to the mailing list if you wish to partake or start threads like this... Please don't make up new guidelines that are both nonsensical and in direct conflict of existing guidelines. [1] https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_package_guidelines#Package_etiquet... -- Rob (coderobe) O< ascii ribbon campaign - stop html mail - www.asciiribbon.org
El lun., 14 oct. 2019 a las 17:17, Alberto Salvia Novella via arch-general (<arch-general@archlinux.org>) escribió:
Robin Broda:
This is universally stupid. abrasiveness = blockage
Please, don't feed the troll and ignore this thread. Greetings. -- Óscar García Amor | ogarcia at moire.org | http://ogarcia.me
On Mon, 14 Oct 2019 17:17:09 +0200 Alberto Salvia Novella via arch-general <arch-general@archlinux.org> wrote:
Robin Broda:
This is universally stupid. abrasiveness = blockage
LOL, blocking a TU who's making valid points. This thread was going nowhere in the first place, so I guess it doesn't matter.
As said, blocked the latest three. We can either have a constructive conversation or it's over, that simple. Make your choice.
On 10/14/19 10:41 AM, Alberto Salvia Novella via arch-general wrote:
As said, blocked the latest three.
We can either have a constructive conversation or it's over, that simple. Make your choice.
Blocking people who respond negatively to your proposal is a great way to get people to universally hate your ideas. Especially when one of the people you block is a TU who explains why your ideas won't be followed. If you can't handle that, you're in the wrong place. Though as other users have already pointed out, it looks like your proposal was a thread going nowhere from the start. Your proposal has little rationale given to justify your ideas, at least one of your ideas already conflicts with existing guidelines, and one of your ideas is startlingly bad security practice nobody should follow. Yaro
On 10/14/19 3:59 PM, Alberto Salvia Novella via arch-general wrote:
Video-reply <https://youtu.be/a_CNx63kLxk>
For someone who "can handle disagreement" like you claim in your video, you sure are protesting quite a bit over it. I also have a hard time someone is really extending a hand in good faith with respectful, mutual discourse and productive discussion when they: - Immediately block anyone who disagrees with them like you did three times now at least. - Hide like/dislike count on your videos. - Disable comments on your videos. It tells me you're not interested in people actually responding to your thoughts in an intellectually honest way. I can handle disagreement too, but I don't have time for people whose approach to criticism, constructive or no, is intellectual dishonesty. You're not asking for respect, you're asking for people to just accept what you say. That's not the same thing. Respect means you can take disagreement without blocking them or posting a Youtube video that's one half boring and one half petulant whining about your treatment. Yaro
El lunes, 14 de octubre de 2019 23:13:15 (CEST) Yaro Kasear escribió:
On 10/14/19 3:59 PM, Alberto Salvia Novella via arch-general wrote:
Video-reply <https://youtu.be/a_CNx63kLxk>
I really don't like your attitute and nonverbal communication (that finger pointing all the time... so aggressive). And this leaving completely aside your proposals, which I cannot say if they are good or not because I am just a regular desktop user. By the way, I've been subscribed for months to this list, and your answers and this video is the only rude/agressive content that I've read so far. But don't worry, I don't hate you :) Best regards, Iyán
On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 4:59 PM Alberto Salvia Novella via arch-general < arch-general@archlinux.org> wrote:
Video-reply <https://youtu.be/a_CNx63kLxk>
"no matter how much you know, you don't know everything" has nothing to do with Robin's most egregious trespass: "This is universally stupid." The fact that he said "stupid" instead of "a bad idea" is really no grounds for shutting off conversation, and it's not because he's insecure. Be sure to separate yourself from the ideas you're floating. When he says a particular practice is stupid, he's not calling you stupid. Even if he was, surely you can handle such a small personal attack and move on? But he's not.
You are right, I shall not follow drama up on comments like these. If a message looks malicious I shall simply skip reading it, and silently filter re-incident people.
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Monday, October 14, 2019 8:59 PM, Alberto Salvia Novella via arch-general <arch-general@archlinux.org> wrote:
Video-reply https://youtu.be/a_CNx63kLxk
Why so serious? Seriously, why is this thread not nuked?
Em outubro 14, 2019 12:41 Alberto Salvia Novella via arch-general escreveu:
As said, blocked the latest three.
We can either have a constructive conversation or it's over, that simple. Make your choice.
Please, block me as well. Or, go even further and block anyone with an @archlinux.org email address. Appreciate. Regards, Giancarlo Razzolini
Maybe it's just me, but I don't think it seems appropriate for a TU to respond like that to a member of the community. It's certainly doesn't make for a welcoming atmosphere. Even though Arch is not for everyone, there's no need to actively drive people away by being rude. I also don't think authority is a good excuse for being rude - quite the opposite, in fact. /Emil On 2019-10-14 17:22, Doug Newgard via arch-general wrote:
On Mon, 14 Oct 2019 17:17:09 +0200 Alberto Salvia Novella via arch-general <arch-general@archlinux.org> wrote:
Robin Broda:
This is universally stupid. abrasiveness = blockage
LOL, blocking a TU who's making valid points.
This thread was going nowhere in the first place, so I guess it doesn't matter.
On 2019-10-14 17:22, Doug Newgard via arch-general wrote:
On Mon, 14 Oct 2019 17:17:09 +0200 Alberto Salvia Novella via arch-general <arch-general@archlinux.org> wrote:
Robin Broda:
This is universally stupid. abrasiveness = blockage
LOL, blocking a TU who's making valid points.
This thread was going nowhere in the first place, so I guess it doesn't matter.
Indeed, this thread will go no where. Note that this guy has already been banned from the forums because he has pulled similiar stunts there aswell [1]. On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 01:25:49PM +0200, Emil Lundberg via arch-general wrote:
Maybe it's just me, but I don't think it seems appropriate for a TU to respond like that to a member of the community. It's certainly doesn't make for a welcoming atmosphere. Even though Arch is not for everyone, there's no need to actively drive people away by being rude. I also don't think authority is a good excuse for being rude - quite the opposite, in fact.
It's debetable if calling a idea stupid is rude, but just cutting off all communication because you feel offended is not the way to go. If he really wanted to improve things, he should have noted the tone as side note after adressing the mentoined issues with his proposal. [1]: https://bbs.archlinux.org/profile.php?id=113614
On 2019-10-15 14:23, Fabian Piribauer via arch-general wrote:
It's debetable if calling a idea stupid is rude, but just cutting off all communication because you feel offended is not the way to go. If he really wanted to improve things, he should have noted the tone as side note after adressing the mentoined issues with his proposal.
Agreed. /Emil
participants (11)
-
Aaron Laws
-
Alberto Salvia Novella
-
Doug Newgard
-
Emil Lundberg
-
fabian.piribauer＠gmail.com
-
Giancarlo Razzolini
-
Iyán Méndez Veiga
-
Maksim Fomin
-
Robin Broda
-
Yaro Kasear
-
Óscar García Amor