On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 11:50 PM, Allan McRae <allan@archlinux.org> wrote:
Dan McGee wrote:
<snip> So some of the next steps: * Get consensus on whether the script side of the signing stuff is in a good enough state. This is basically the first 5 patches on my 'gpg' branch. Does anyone want to raise any objections, suggestions, or have comments?
I had a good look at the makepkg/repo-add patches today and I think it is "in a good enough state". Despite having no idea what I am doing with gpg, I took them for a quick spin and they appear to do what is intended.
My only comment is minor. In:
makepkg: allow signatures to work with split packages http://code.toofishes.net/cgit/dan/pacman.git/commit/?h=gpg&id=12ccd781
this naming seems strange:
local pkg_file="$PKGDEST/${nameofpkg}-${pkgver}-${pkgrel}-${PKGARCH}${EXT}" + local zip_file="$PKGDEST/${nameofpkg}-${pkgver}-${pkgrel}-${PKGARCH}${PKGEXT}"
zip_file is actually the package file and pkg_file is the uncompressed package file. So how about changing these to tar_file and pkg_file respectively?
I have no objection to that; I'll make the adjustment locally at some point here. -Dan