[aur-general] [RFC] New package: proj-svn

Kwpolska kwpolska at gmail.com
Sat Jun 16 09:19:50 EDT 2012

On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 1:48 PM, Mateusz Loskot <mateusz at loskot.net> wrote:
> On 16 June 2012 07:56, Kwpolska <kwpolska at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 12:52 AM, Mateusz Loskot <mateusz at loskot.net> wrote:
>>> I have created first version of proj-svn package for PROJ.4, a cartographic
>>> projections library hosted at http://proj.osgeo.org
>>> I attached two files, PKGBUILD and ChangeLog.
>>> I'd like to ask for review and comments.
>>> Do these files look OK?
>>> Can I pack these files into proj-svn.tar.gz and submit to AUR?
>> Not that way.  You should do `makepkg --source` in the directory with
>> your PKGBUILD file.
> Right, I missed that option.
>> And in terms of your PKGBUILD:
>>  * set description to “Cartographic Projections library, SVN version.”
>> so it is like the upstream package.
> I'd like to include the PROJ.4 part in the description.
> IMO, it's important to avoid confusions.
> As mentioned, there are two or even three similar
> projects with proj or proj4 in name.
>>  * arch=('i686' 'x86_64')
> Done.
>>  * remove empty entries.
> Done.
>>  * ${srcdir}, ${pkgdir}
> I'm not sure I understand.
> Should I remove all uses of these variables?
> I assumed they're set implicitly when user runs makepkg -s

Nope.  In your code, you use $srcdir.  When you should use ${srcdir}.
See the difference?  The braces are important: if someone uses spaces
in their build directory, your PKGBUILD will fail to work.

>>  * you don't need the ChangeLog file,
> I understand it's optional, but do you mean it's advised to not to include it?
> It doesn't hurt to have it, does it?
>> and you didn't show us any
>> COPYING, but you install one.
> COPYING file is grabbed with sources from SVN.
> Here it is
> http://svn.osgeo.org/metacrs/proj/trunk/proj/COPYING
> Should I include copy of this file in the package?

Didn't actually check that in the source.  If your package does create
a license file in /usr/share/licenses, the current method is okay.  If
not, fix it.

>>> Note, there are a few related or similar packages available:
>>> * proj - stable version of PROJ.4
>>> https://www.archlinux.org/packages/?name=proj
>>> * proj-old - old version of PROJ.4
>>> https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=59040
>>> * libproj4 - is a different library to PROJ.4
>>> https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=21666
>>> Homepage: http://home.comcast.net/~gevenden56/proj/
>>> Historically, it is related to PROJ.4, names are similar, but they are
>>> distinct projects.
>>> So, proj-svn is not a duplicate of any existing package.
>> No need to tell that.
> It's a brief background to avoid potential answers like
> "Wait, but we have some PROJ.4 sutff already!"
> Best regards,
> --
> Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net

Kwpolska <http://kwpolska.tk>
stop html mail      | always bottom-post
www.asciiribbon.org | www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
GPG KEY: 5EAAEA16   | Arch Linux x86_64, zsh, mutt, vim.
# vim:set textwidth=70:

More information about the aur-general mailing list