Then you must add all the past Contributors, even if they are 10 or 100?. On the other hand, in the web interface or when you install the package it don't show anything about the contributor, this should be there I think, dont' you?. I mean, you only can know who is the contributor if you open the PKBUILD directly. However, there are things more importants to discuss. This is really irrelevant if you think about it.

2009/4/6 José Valecillos <valecillosjg@gmail.com>:

Then you must add all the past Contributors, even if they are 10 or 100?. On the other hand, in the web interface or when you install the package it don't show anything about the contributor, this should be there I think, dont' you?. I mean, you only can know who is the contributor if you open the PKBUILD directly.

However, there are things more importants to discuss. This is really irrelevant if you think about it.

Excuse me, And who are you to call the things irrelevant?, if is irrelevant for you, then don't reply and it's enough. The fact is that we will take the last discussion were several people agreed to use the Maintainer tag for the current maintainer of the PKGBUILD and past maintainers or the original contributors will be on the contributor tag (even if there are many contributors). So this thread at least was useful to remember the way to handle these tags. (at least for me, and to remember to several people who delete past maintainers). -- Angel Velásquez angvp @ irc.freenode.net Linux Counter: #359909

On Mon, 6 Apr 2009 08:53:06 +0300 Evangelos Foutras <foutrelis@gmail.com> wrote:

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned before, but here's my take:

- Maintainer: The person who currently maintains a package. - Contributor: The person who first submitted the package. If a package is so badly constructed that it needs to be rewritten from scratch, the contributor tag would only list the person who did the rewrite.

I know we've agreed on multiple contributor tags, but I believe the method detailed above is cleaner, more maintainable and more straight-forward. I'll most likely adopt it for my own packages, but I'm not saying that anyone else should.

I would say that we should hold a voting to make a final decision. However, it's not an important issue at all, so the current way of doing things (multiple contributor lines) is sufficient.

As I already mentioned someplace else it's still mixed up here: http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_Packaging_Standards I'd love it if someone knowledgeable could go through that page and could correct any other errors before I try to adhere to those standards. There are also other points that aren't mentioned there, like whether one should use $pkgver or ${pkgver}. All the PKGBUILd.proto files use $pkgver, I've seen both versions in wildlife. /me is now off to edit contributor tags.. Philipp

On Tue, 7 Apr 2009 05:35:15 +0800 Ray Rashif <schivmeister@gmail.com> wrote:

Scripting/coding style has been discussed before. To use ${pkgver} instead of $pkgver is due to consistency. Technically, the braces enable one to append to variables eg. ${pkgver}alpha. Another camp would like double-quotes as well. If you remember, the reason for quotes on ${src,pkg}dir is the fact that no one knows which bloke keeps his local build dir named with spaces.

Quotes on ${src,pkg}dir ? I believe I haven't seen this, can you give an example?

To KIS, "# Maintainer:" for binary maintainer and "# Contributor:" for the following:

* A submitter of a package. * A _significant_ contributor to the content of the buildscripts including the PKGBUILD -- so how would one define "significant"? well, it's up to you. If a person does not own a package but has contributed a good deal to it via other means (comments on AUR), the owner _may_ choose to add that person to the list as well.

It's not supposed to be a big deal, so long as there's a way to contact someone.

I believe it was agreed and agreed again today that maintainer is not only for maintainers of binary packages but also for the maintainers of AUR packages. --Philipp

On Tue, 7 Apr 2009 00:28:18 +0000 Ray Rashif <schivmeister@gmail.com> wrote:

I meant srcdir or pkgdir (:

I know, I just never noticed it. Now I've seen that it's mostly used when changing directories and stuff. Dang, yet another thing to check my scripts for.. Anyway, it would be nice if the usage of ${pkgver} and $pkgver was more consistent. The kernel script uses ${}, the protos don't, etc..

Right..If that's the way it's enforced if at all.

I doubt the tags are enforced, same as the other stuff. It only really matters if you apply for TU or want neat scripts. Night, keep your rays back for a couple of hours ;) regards, Philipp

On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 11:56 AM, Allan McRae <allan@archlinux.org> wrote:

My summary of this:

1) Maintainer tag:  It is a comment - makepkg does not care so nor should you

2) $foo vs ${foo} : they do the same thing (except in rare cases where brackets are needed...) - makepkg does not care so nor should you.

3) "$srcdr" vs $srcdir.  The quotes are good for people who build in directories with spaces in their name - so it may be good to use quotes.  But I don't care about people who use spaces in directory names, so I am not going to do this.  Note the prototype does include quotes...

4) $startdir/src vs $srcdir.   $srcdir is correct.  As stated in the PKGBUILD man page, there is no guarantee that these will continue to point at the same directory in future pacman versions.

Agreed.