On February 28, 2019 11:33:36 AM EST, "brent s." <bts@square-r00t.net> wrote:
On February 28, 2019 8:58:06 AM EST, Jerome Leclanche <jerome@leclan.ch> wrote:
<snip>
OT: We should maybe have the AUR lint PKGBUILDs on git push (and reject really bad ones) if we want to improve that situation.
J. Leclanche
I've been thinking enforcing the use of makechrootpkg and namcap on
On 2/28/19 11:22 AM, Daniel M. Capella via aur-general wrote: package submission should be introduced, and maybe even on major (and minor?) version bumps for packages following semver. Inb4 yes I'm aware of the number of false-positives in namcap.
-- Best, polyzen
you could get around the namcap false-positives by maybe assigning a "quality score" instead of a pass/fail, with a certain required threshold set.
there aren't really enough data points for a really useful scoring in namcap alone, though, so you'd want to implement other scoring points too. e.g.: - 50 for a successful makechrootpkg - 10 for each namcap test pass - 10 for proper comment per spec[0] (i.e. '#\s*(M|m)aintainer:', etc.)
and anything higher than, i dunno, 70 or 80 is considered pass and below is fail.
or just attach a warning for each namcap failure to the package's info in the AUR.
[0] https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_package_guidelines#PKGBUILD_protot...
Listing the false-positives could be good, especially as that would point out what needs to be improved in namcap. -- Best, polyzen