[aur-general] Going to submit my first AUR package dvtm-git
Hello! Like the subject says, I am going to submit my first AUR package dvtm-git [1]. But before I do that I would like to get some questions answered. Questions: Although dvtm [2] in AUR has the description "Dynamic virtual terminal manager", I have chosen "Tiling window management for the console" as the description of my package. My reason for choosing this description is that _I think_ it is more descriptive than just giving the meaning of the abbreviation "dvtm" (like the dvtm package does). * Should I go with my own description of the package or use the same description as the dvtm package? (Maybe add some information to inform that the source is a Git repository?) * What other improvements should or can I do to the package? Best regards, garfiield PS. Does it build on a x86_64 machine? (I have not tested, but since dvtm [2] does I assume this one also does.) -- [1] http://git.garfiield.net/?p=pkgbuilds.git;a=tree;f=dvtm-git;h=a72a63e3146980... http://git.garfiield.net/?p=pkgbuilds.git;a=snapshot;h=a72a63e31469809242c06... git://git.garfiield.net/pkgbuilds.git [2] http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=14182
On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 9:41 PM, garfiield
PS. Does it build on a x86_64 machine? (I have not tested, but since dvtm [2] does I assume this one also does.)
Built fine on x86_64. Regards, Mike
On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 11:41 AM, garfiield
Hello!
Like the subject says, I am going to submit my first AUR package dvtm-git [1]. But before I do that I would like to get some questions answered.
Questions: Although dvtm [2] in AUR has the description "Dynamic virtual terminal manager", I have chosen "Tiling window management for the console" as the description of my package. My reason for choosing this description is that _I think_ it is more descriptive than just giving the meaning of the abbreviation "dvtm" (like the dvtm package does).
* Should I go with my own description of the package or use the same description as the dvtm package? (Maybe add some information to inform that the source is a Git repository?)
- your description is just fine, it is indeed more descriptive - the git part should already be obvious from package name
* What other improvements should or can I do to the package?
Looks perfect to me after just reading it. Maybe I wouldn't have used a scriptlet just to display this : echo "The configuration of dvtm is done by creating a custom" echo "config.h and (re)compiling the source code." I guess I would just put a comment in the pkgbuild. But it's up to you, there is not only one way to do things :) And another personal opinion : I find packages cumbersome when I have to change source code a lot :) But in that case, once you achieved a decent config, it's alright.
On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 12:38:21PM +0100, Xavier wrote:
- your description is just fine, it is indeed more descriptive - the git part should already be obvious from package name
Great, I have seen packages that include the git part in the description and other packages that do not. So I was unsure on how I would do.
Looks perfect to me after just reading it. Maybe I wouldn't have used a scriptlet just to display this : echo "The configuration of dvtm is done by creating a custom" echo "config.h and (re)compiling the source code."
I guess I would just put a comment in the pkgbuild. But it's up to you, there is not only one way to do things :)
I chose this way since one comment on the dvtm package suggested to use the dwm style (include the config.h). While checking the abs I also noted that dwm in [community] uses a scriptlet to display a similar message, but that is probably because it is in [community] and not in AUR?
On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 11:41:22AM +0100, garfiield wrote:
[1] http://git.garfiield.net/?p=pkgbuilds.git;a=tree;f=dvtm-git;h=a72a63e3146980... http://git.garfiield.net/?p=pkgbuilds.git;a=snapshot;h=a72a63e31469809242c06... git://git.garfiield.net/pkgbuilds.git
Since pkgbuilds is a fairly common name for a Git repository I decided to change the name of my repo to gnpkgbuilds in order to make it a little bit more personal. The result of this is that the old URLs (quoted above) do not work any more. However, the package is now in AUR [1]. Thank you everyone for giving me recommendations and testing my package on x86_64! Best regards, garfiield -- [1] http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=32992
participants (3)
-
garfiield
-
Mike Sampson
-
Xavier