thanks for the review. I'm grabbing as it your suggestion for the package description . 2017-07-02 16:21 GMT+01:00 Eli Schwartz via aur-general < aur-general@archlinux.org>:
On 07/02/2017 09:48 AM, mickael foucaux via aur-general wrote:
thanks.
The package author and I made some updates after you comments.
about checksums: - I changed it for 'SKIP' rule
about version number: - version tag has been added to original repository - and the PKGBUILD grabs it
about the name: - I added the '-git' suffix - I updated the group name as well
about variables: - $srcdir and $pkgdir are now embed in quoted strings
about licence: - it has been added to the source repository
Is that good enough to fit AUR quality?
Looks good to me. Note that now there are tags provided by upstream (good job on that), you could, optionally, choose to upload a non-git package that uses: source=("gopro-linux-$pkgver.tar.gz::$url/archive/$pkgver.tar.gz") which is the reproducible archive created on that repository's Releases page. As it is, though, this package is certainly sufficient to provide a *-git package.
I'd also like to point to the pkgdesc... "Useful tool set for post production" doesn't seem descriptive enough to me, I would probably use something like "Tools for post production with GoPro cameras". Just from looking at the PKGBUILD, I cannot tell what gopro is or why I might want to use their tools. This might not matter to people already looking for software that relates to the gopro, but at least it could help people know when the package is *not* for them.
-- Eli Schwartz