Eli Schwartz via aur-general <aur-general@archlinux.org> schrieb am Di., 16. Aug. 2016, 15:10:
On 08/16/2016 06:54 AM, Patrick Eigensatz via aur-general wrote:
I usually do run my shellscripts via ./ too, but when I experimented with makepkg I experienced some errors and I wasn't sure if makepkg would know how to interpret ./ so I wrote sh. I'll change this back soon.
What kind of errors? Since the two formats should be exactly the same unless the shellscript is not marked as executable... This may just be a style nit, but mysterious errors aren't a style nit -- they are something you should understand, rather than simply avoid.
Oh, another "good practice" suggestion:
For the source array, use source=("$pkgname-$pkgver.tar.gz::$url/archive/v$pkgver.tar.gz")
This will rename the source tarball so it won't clash with other downloads, since GitHub uses the same style of pkgver-based url locations (with content-disposition, which makepkg doesn't respect, to rename it properly).
Why does this matter? Only because if someone uses a common $SRCDEST (see `man makepkg.conf`) they might have a different file with the same name which makepkg will assume is the file it wants (then fail the integrity check).
-- Eli Schwartz
No, the errors I experienced were all PKGBUILD syntax related mistakes; also I didn't know I could use full bash syntax in the PKGSRC file this is why I "extended" ./ to sh to eliminate possible error causes I would not have been aware of. Yes, indeed the github downloads all look the same. I'll implement your suggestion soon, thank you! -- Patrick