Hey,
This is the AUR though.
Why should we treat AUR packages as any less? You don't treat code quality like its worthless if its a smaller project, you still write and maintain the codebase to the highest standard. This applies to the AUR too, just because its on the AUR doesn't mean you should throw the quality out the window!
Additionally, if a package is broken and fails testing, it wouldn't be pushed by the CI/CD infra.
How do you know? Just because something is built doesn't mean it is functional. You don't test code by compiling it and hoping it works if it complies successfully.
makepkg has a rich collection of error/exit codes which help specify this for testing.
I, personally, see no reason why if the package is: - able to be built in a clean env - installs properly in another clean env - returns no error codes besides `0` from makepkg that it wouldn't be qualified for an automated push/update.
Like I said, although it has a rich collection, a package can be built, just like code, but still contain logical issues within the package, such as you forgetting to move a binary into the package during the build, and thus the package being defective. You can't test for this within your CI/CD.
After all, such inspection is likely what one would do manually, anyway.
Manually pushing to the AUR is still the way to go, and considering botting of the AUR is disallowed (unless there are exceptions?) surely this includes CI/CD pushing commits to the AUR?
Seems a bit extreme of a stance for a simple error in a package build which was pushed, but you do you.
Well maybe I care too much about the quality of my PKGBUILD's, but is that a bad thing? Every time I rush, or do not spend the time the package deserves it is shipped partially or fully broken. Packaging takes time, you cant expect CI/CD to do it all for you.
Good luck funding that 😄 If the package is large enough to fund multiple full-time testers, it probably won't be in the AUR, and would instead be in the main repos.
It was a joke, sorry if I did not make that clear! (I thought :P would make it clear :/)
At the end of the day, someone made a small mistake and it was published by an automated task. It was a small problem and I'm sure it will be fixed soon. I don't see any reason to instantly jump to extreme conclusions based on any of this.
Because it is technically not within the packaging guidelines, and is disputed. Until someone with higher authority rules whether it should or shouldn't be used, it should be used sparingly. -- Polarian GPG signature: 0770E5312238C760 Website: https://polarian.dev JID/XMPP: polarian@polarian.dev