On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Lukas Fleischer <archlinux@cryptocrack.de> wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 at 03:11:54, Dave Reisner wrote:
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 06:31:40PM -0500, Dave Reisner wrote:
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 08:52:46PM +0100, Lukas Fleischer wrote:
3) duplicate a lot of stuff in the pkgname section, even if it's identical to what is listed in the pkgbase section.
That shouldn't be the case. What package were you looking at that shows this in the .AURINFO? The goal is that pkgbase section provides the bulk of the metadata -- the individual pkgname sections are only overrides and supplements. The GetMergedPackage def in the python parser illustrates how the base and "overlay" create each output package.
Nevermind this -- I found cases where this happens. Fixed locally, just need to write some regression tests.
Great! I just submitted some patches to the AUR to add support for the new format and add a deprecation warning for packages not containing any meta data [1].
[1] https://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-dev/2014-January/002616.html
Any comments on using a more standard format for the file? I mentioned I do a lot of domain-specific packaging, and in order to integrate with arch linux the .PKGINFO file format itself (and cousins) has to be parsed. Having a common base format helps, a lot. J. Leclanche