On Thu, 22 Feb 2018 19:45:48 +0530 Ankit R Gadiya wrote:

Hi everyone,

I added two new PKGBUILD(s) today in the AUR, both are plugins for vim. Any advice, suggestions or feedback will be greatly appreciated. And if anybody would like the *-git versions of these I will be more then happy to add them as well.

1. ranger-vim: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/ranger-vim/ 2. tcomment-vim: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/tcomment-vim/

Ranger-vim # Maintainer: Ankit R Gadiya

pkgname=ranger-vim pkgver=2.0 pkgrel=1 pkgdesc="Ranger integration for vim" license=('MIT')

MIT license is required to be installed in the filesystem, but I don't see that done below.

arch=('any') url="https://github.com/francoiscabrol/ranger.vim" depends=('vim' 'ranger') groups=('vim-plugins') source=("https://github.com/francoiscabrol/${pkgname/-/.}/archive/${pkgver}.tar.gz")

You need to rename this file. A file named "2.0.tar.gz" is far too generic if people are using SRCDEST.

md5sums=('59f24462eb5c7561756a646585cd9e4c')

package() { install -Dm755 "${srcdir}/${pkgname/-/.}-${pkgver}/plugin/ranger.vim" \ "${pkgdir}/usr/share/vim/vimfiles/plugin/ranger.vim"

You can omit the ${srcdir} here if you'd like, functions will always start there. You can also omit the last ranger.vim if you use the -t switch. Both of these are optional.

}

tcomment-vim # Maintainer: Ankit R Gadiya

pkgname=tcomment-vim pkgver=3.08.1 pkgrel=1 pkgdesc="An extensible & universal comment vim-plugin that also handles embedded filetypes"

Is this a wrapping issue or is this really 2 lines?

license=('GPL3') arch=('any') url="https://github.com/tomtom/tcomment_vim" depends=('vim') groups=('vim-plugins') source=("https://github.com/tomtom/${pkgname/-/_}/archive/${pkgver}.tar.gz")

Same as with the other PKGBUILD

md5sums=('6ea8f4ce78411efba444a0218e111219')

package() {

install -d "${pkgdir}/usr/share/vim/vimfiles/"{doc,plugin,autoload}

This doesn't do anything. The -D switch on the following commands will take care of it.

install -Dm755 "${srcdir}/${pkgname/-/_}-${pkgver}/plugin/tcomment.vim" \ "${pkgdir}/usr/share/vim/vimfiles/plugin/tcomment.vim" install -Dm755 "${srcdir}/${pkgname/-/_}-${pkgver}/doc/tcomment.txt" \ "${pkgdir}/usr/share/vim/vimfiles/doc/tcomment.txt" install -Dm755 "${srcdir}/${pkgname/-/_}-${pkgver}/autoload/tcomment.vim" \ "${pkgdir}/usr/share/vim/vimfiles/autoload/tcomment.vim"

Same as other PKGBUILD.

}

On 22 Feb 2018, at 7:45 +0530, Ankit R Gadiya wrote:

Hi everyone,

I added two new PKGBUILD(s) today in the AUR, both are plugins for vim. Any advice, suggestions or feedback will be greatly appreciated. And if anybody would like the *-git versions of these I will be more then happy to add them as well.

1. ranger-vim: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/ranger-vim/ 2. tcomment-vim: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/tcomment-vim/

install -Dm755 "${srcdir}/${pkgname/-/_}-${pkgver}/plugin/tcomment.vim" \ "${pkgdir}/usr/share/vim/vimfiles/plugin/tcomment.vim" install -Dm755 "${srcdir}/${pkgname/-/_}-${pkgver}/doc/tcomment.txt" \ "${pkgdir}/usr/share/vim/vimfiles/doc/tcomment.txt" install -Dm755 "${srcdir}/${pkgname/-/_}-${pkgver}/autoload/tcomment.vim" \ "${pkgdir}/usr/share/vim/vimfiles/autoload/tcomment.vim"

Normally I wouldn't actually comment on this niggle, but I'd argue that it's often best to optimize for legibility. Now, there are definitely religious differences on this point. The names of the packages are almost certainly not going to change (unlike the versions), so personally, I'd say that "tcomment-vim" is going to be immediately clearer to the reader than $pkgname, and "tcomment_vim" is *definitely* going to be clearer than "${pkgname/-/_}" (and the use of the shell replacement is what inspired me to make this comment). Granted, it's not going to be *difficult* to figure out, but there you go. Anything else others already mentioned. Cheers, iff

On 02/22/2018 12:09 PM, Ankit R Gadiya wrote:

...

...

pkgdesc="An extensible & universal comment vim-plugin that also handles embedded filetypes"

Is this a wrapping issue or is this really 2 lines? No, but is there a problem with multiline description?

Curious what you think the utility of sprinkling \n in the built package description is... -- Eli Schwartz Bug Wrangler and Trusted User

On 02/22/2018 12:12 PM, Ankit R Gadiya wrote:

On 02/22/2018 08:16 PM, Levente Polyak via aur-general wrote:

...

Naming scheme for vim plug-ins is always the other way around, vim-something not something-vim. Always prefix them with vim.

Cheers Levente

I wasn't aware of that. Thanks for letting me know.

How can I fix it now? Do I have to Request Deletion on these ones and then upload it with new name or is there some other way.

That is exactly how you would do it, yes. -- Eli Schwartz Bug Wrangler and Trusted User

On 02/22/2018 10:42 PM, Eli Schwartz via aur-general wrote:

On 02/22/2018 12:09 PM, Ankit R Gadiya wrote:

...

...

...

pkgdesc="An extensible & universal comment vim-plugin that also handles embedded filetypes"

Is this a wrapping issue or is this really 2 lines? No, but is there a problem with multiline description?

Curious what you think the utility of sprinkling \n in the built package description is...

So that lines are shorter then 80 characters. -- Ankit R Gadiya

On 02/22/2018 10:29 PM, Ivy Foster wrote:

On 22 Feb 2018, at 7:45 +0530, Ankit R Gadiya wrote:

...

Hi everyone,

I added two new PKGBUILD(s) today in the AUR, both are plugins for vim. Any advice, suggestions or feedback will be greatly appreciated. And if anybody would like the *-git versions of these I will be more then happy to add them as well.

1. ranger-vim: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/ranger-vim/ 2. tcomment-vim: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/tcomment-vim/

install -Dm755 "${srcdir}/${pkgname/-/_}-${pkgver}/plugin/tcomment.vim" \ "${pkgdir}/usr/share/vim/vimfiles/plugin/tcomment.vim" install -Dm755 "${srcdir}/${pkgname/-/_}-${pkgver}/doc/tcomment.txt" \ "${pkgdir}/usr/share/vim/vimfiles/doc/tcomment.txt" install -Dm755 "${srcdir}/${pkgname/-/_}-${pkgver}/autoload/tcomment.vim" \ "${pkgdir}/usr/share/vim/vimfiles/autoload/tcomment.vim"

Normally I wouldn't actually comment on this niggle, but I'd argue that it's often best to optimize for legibility.

Now, there are definitely religious differences on this point. The names of the packages are almost certainly not going to change (unlike the versions), so personally, I'd say that "tcomment-vim" is going to be immediately clearer to the reader than $pkgname, and "tcomment_vim" is *definitely* going to be clearer than "${pkgname/-/_}" (and the use of the shell replacement is what inspired me to make this comment). Granted, it's not going to be *difficult* to figure out, but there you go. Anything else others already mentioned.

Religious differences? I can't say anything about that as I'm new. Also about $pkgname, it would almost always have been true, but now I'll have to actually change the name of package and hence the $pkgname. But I get your point.

Cheers, iff

-- Ankit R Gadiya

On 02/22/2018 12:30 PM, Ankit R Gadiya wrote:

On 02/22/2018 10:42 PM, Eli Schwartz via aur-general wrote:

...

On 02/22/2018 12:09 PM, Ankit R Gadiya wrote:

...

...

...

pkgdesc="An extensible & universal comment vim-plugin that also handles embedded filetypes"

Is this a wrapping issue or is this really 2 lines? No, but is there a problem with multiline description?

Curious what you think the utility of sprinkling \n in the built package description is...

So that lines are shorter then 80 characters.

The pkgdesc should not be more than 80 characters. But if it is anyway, using a \n char in the field will not fix anything! Shortening it, will fix things. Not that it really matters, it is 82 chars... If you simply think that bash collapses newlines, you're wrong. ``` pkgdesc="An extensible & universal comment vim-plugin that also handles embedded filetypes" echo "$pkgdesc" ``` -- Eli Schwartz Bug Wrangler and Trusted User