[aur-general] uppity replaces curlpaste in [community]
Hi, curlpaste [1] has been replaced [2] by uppity [3]. The usage is very much the same. I propose moving uppity-git to [community] as uppity, and removing curlpaste (not uploading it to the AUR). Am I right in thinking that uppity "replaces", but does not "conflict" with curlpaste as there are no file conflicts? I believe I need three other TUs to agree that uppity can go into [community] as it only has two votes. If this does not happen in the next two weeks, I will continue to remove curlpaste from [community], but leave uppity-git in the AUR. Thanks, [1] https://www.archlinux.org/packages/community/any/curlpaste/ [2] https://github.com/Kiwi/curlpaste/tree/master "Please use Uppity from this point on, it is far better than curlpaste ever was." [3] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/uppity-git/ -- Jonathan Steel
Jonathan Steel wrote:
Hi,
curlpaste [1] has been replaced [2] by uppity [3]. The usage is very much the same. I propose moving uppity-git to [community] as uppity, and removing curlpaste (not uploading it to the AUR). Am I right in thinking that uppity "replaces", but does not "conflict" with curlpaste as there are no file conflicts?
I believe I need three other TUs to agree that uppity can go into [community] as it only has two votes. If this does not happen in the next two weeks, I will continue to remove curlpaste from [community], but leave uppity-git in the AUR.
Hi, If there are no file conflicts then you do not need an entry in the conflicts array. If you rename the package (uppity-git -> uppity), do you plan to modify it so that it builds from fixed tags? If not then it should not be renamed as it remains a git package. Renaming it would be against our guidelines. I also noticed that you are using "cd $_gitname" in the PKGBUILD. Please see my reply to someone else about why this is incorrect[1] and update it to do everything in "$srcdir/$_gitname". If uppity is a true successor to curlpaste in [community] then I believe they may be swapped without approval, but wait for someone else to confirm it. Regards, Xyne [1] https://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2013-September/025124.ht...
On Tue 17 Sep 2013 at 21:36, Xyne wrote:
If you rename the package (uppity-git -> uppity), do you plan to modify it so that it builds from fixed tags? If not then it should not be renamed as it remains a git package. Renaming it would be against our guidelines.
I will do so.
I also noticed that you are using "cd $_gitname" in the PKGBUILD. Please see my reply to someone else about why this is incorrect[1] and update it to do everything in "$srcdir/$_gitname".
$_gitname is $srcdir/$_gitname, not $startdir/$_gitname, so it's fine. To double-check I set $SRCDEST to point somewhere else and it builds fine still.
[...] [1] https://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2013-September/025124.ht...
-- Jonathan Steel
Jonathan Steel wrote:
$_gitname is $srcdir/$_gitname, not $startdir/$_gitname, so it's fine. To double-check I set $SRCDEST to point somewhere else and it builds fine still.
You're right. Looking at the source of makepkg, I see now that all functions cd into $srcdir. I still prefer the "$srcdir/$_gitname" format as it is explicit and future-proof, but there is currently no technical reason to do so.
On 18 September 2013 06:18, Xyne <xyne@archlinux.ca> wrote:
Jonathan Steel wrote:
$_gitname is $srcdir/$_gitname, not $startdir/$_gitname, so it's fine. To double-check I set $SRCDEST to point somewhere else and it builds fine still.
You're right. Looking at the source of makepkg, I see now that all functions cd into $srcdir. I still prefer the "$srcdir/$_gitname" format as it is explicit and future-proof, but there is currently no technical reason to do so.
I was told by at least one pacman dev (can't quite recall who or via which communication channel) that this practice should not be obsoleted; we should continue to navigate into $srcdir before doing anything. -- GPG/PGP ID: C0711BF1
On Wed 18 Sep 2013 at 20:00, Rashif Ray Rahman wrote:
On 18 September 2013 06:18, Xyne <xyne@archlinux.ca> wrote:
Jonathan Steel wrote:
$_gitname is $srcdir/$_gitname, not $startdir/$_gitname, so it's fine. To double-check I set $SRCDEST to point somewhere else and it builds fine still.
You're right. Looking at the source of makepkg, I see now that all functions cd into $srcdir. I still prefer the "$srcdir/$_gitname" format as it is explicit and future-proof, but there is currently no technical reason to do so.
I was told by at least one pacman dev (can't quite recall who or via which communication channel) that this practice should not be obsoleted; we should continue to navigate into $srcdir before doing anything.
Thanks both, I agree specifically using $srcdir would be clearer/better practice. I'll update my git packages accordingly next time I touch them. -- Jonathan Steel
participants (3)
-
Jonathan Steel
-
Rashif Ray Rahman
-
Xyne