[aur-dev] [PATCH] git-update: Check for missing install and source files

[Gordian Edenhofer]

On Mon, 2015-06-01 at 00:25 +0200, Lukas Fleischer wrote:
> On Mon, 01 Jun 2015 at 00:00:31, Gordian Edenhofer wrote:
> > [...]
> > > Why are checksums an issue? You can use the checksum of the 
> > > correct
> > > file. It doesn't match the checksum of the dummy file but I don't 
> > > see
> > > how that is an issue (it is even good since the user immediately 
> > > notices
> > > that something is wrong with the dummy file). Another possibility 
> > > is 
> > > to
> > > tell makepkg to skip the integrity check.
> > > 
> > > > And *if* we go for solution 2, it should indeed be well
> > > > -documented.
> > > > 
> > > > Best, Marcel
> > > > 
> > 
> > I am against dummy files and would even prefer dropping the patch 
> > in
> > favor of a clean processing of files.
> 
> What do you mean by "clean processing of files"? I consider the 
> version
> with plausibility checks to be cleaner than the version without.
> 

Basically I was thinking about the exact same problem as you were
writing about in your recent mail: It is somewhat inconvenient to
package files like this when considering the integrity check done by
makepkage.
Having a dummy file in the git repo and the true file for the checksum
is somewhat odd. Using SKIP is also not a true alternative IMHO.

> > Correct me if I am wrong but since the information is extracted from
> > the 
> > .SRCINFO file, the package ttf-m-win8 should work just fine. The
> > only 
> > problem is which files are delivered and which shell be
> > downloaded. As 


Just ignore this part, I misunderstood previous mails. Sorry about
that.

> > things stand right now everything with "
> > ://" or "lp:" in its filename is considered 
> > an URL and therefore the
> > present of the file is not checked. This would potentially ignore 
> > cases
> > where those files are omitted though not downloadable. 
> > However
> > considering that this will help the vast majority where this 
> > schema
> > fits, the minority of missing warnings are 
> > neglectable.
> 
> Sorry, but I do not follow your argument. The patch uses the same
> mechanism as makepkg to check whether a file is local.

This kind of check would see files which are named e.g. lp:foo as not
missing even if they are.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-dev/attachments/20150601/ba46db56/attachment.asc>