On 07/30/2016 11:56 AM, Alessandro Menti wrote:
Hi everyone, I've just started writing some PKGBUILDs for some programs that are not present neither in the official package repository nor in the AUR. Specifically, I've packaged libdime [1] as a required dependency for the X-Plane developer tools [2].
I'm attaching the PKGBUILD below - if someone on this list could review it, that would be much appreciated. I've also got the following questions: 1) Is it correct to name the package "libdime-hg" only because its sources are checked out from a Mercurial repository (that's because no official tarballs exist any more - the Debian copyright file for the library [3] points to a now dismissed FTP site [4]), or should I just name it "libdime"? 2) On the same note, assuming that naming the package "libdime-hg" is correct, does it make sense to put provides=("${pkgname%-hg}") conflicts=("${pkgname%-hg}") in the PKGBUILD? I've thought to put these two lines as "safeguards" in case I need to distinguish between a libdime VCS and non-VCS package in the future.
Cheers and thanks in advance, Alessandro Menti
*-hg/*-git/*-svn packages do not mean the source was checked out using those protocols, they mean that the package builds from the latest development sources and that therefore the PKGBUILD will automatically build e.g. the latest revision (or the latest revision of a particular development branch, depending on your scenario). Unless you actually mean to indicate that that package fundamentally builds the development version from hg "tip", please use the version tarballs available at https://bitbucket.org/${user}/${repo}/get/${revision}.tar.gz In this case, there do not appear to be tags, so just go with the latest commit hash. But still, it is false to claim that it is a development version. I don't know how you would go about calculating the actual pkgver though, if the repository doesn't seem to have tagged releases or proper versioning. -- Eli Schwartz