On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 9:03 PM, Gordian Edenhofer wrote:

On Thu, 2016-09-08 at 20:41 +0000, Michael Witten wrote:

...

On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 10:39 AM, wrote:

...

- poorly written PKGBUILD

Well, I cannot speak to the simple[ton] conventions that the Arch Linux "community" may now have in place, but the PKGBUILD that I had maintained for quite some time appears to be incredibly well written, robust, and quite forward thinking.

Good Day, Sir!

This request is nearly a year old. I don't really understand why you even reply to this mail at this point. Just to be clear your PKGBUILD did not build since you wrote comments in between the fields of the options array. You were informed about this oddity through the comment section but instead of investigating you chose to complain about Arch Linux in general. Btw. the request was auto accepted since the package was flagged as out-of-date for quite a while.

Best Regards, Gordian Edenhofer

I SAID GOOD DAY! PS Lighten up, Francis. Why would I have wasted my time investigating yet another one of Arch Linux's *obvious* failings? It's quite telling that you still cannot perceive the fact that the fault lay in `makepkg', not the PKGBUILD. As I recall, it used to be understood (and even documented) that the PKGBUILD is merely a file containing a Bash shell language script; in that context, there is absolutely nothing at all "odd" about including comments within an array definition, a useful addition which had hitherto worked just fine.