[aur-general] TU Application - György Balló
lists at baums-on-web.de
Fri Mar 2 08:16:42 EST 2012
Am Fri, 02 Mar 2012 22:01:59 +1000
schrieb Allan McRae <allan at archlinux.org>:
> I see what was done there... makedepends in split packages probably
> need to become depends when built as individual packages.
> @György: Let that be a lesson in being careful when making
> reactionary changes to packages. Don't worry... it is a surprisingly
> common occurrence when people first become a TU and start getting bug
> reports. There are always annoying and persistent users that think
> they are right,
If I'm so annoying and I'm so wrong then explain why his packages are
so good and I'm so wrong, but this time try it with facts.
Explain to me e.g. - I know I already asked that Stéphane - why it is
such a good packaging quality to have two totally different depends
arrays in one PKGBUILD of which one is also prefixed with a "true &&".
Where in the Arch Packaging Standards is this written down? In which
PKGBUILD proto can this be found?
Since when it is a good packaging quality to upload packages which
can't be installed?
Just explain it factually to me. And don't tell me anything about "not
officially supported". Neither the helpers nor the split packages are
"officially supported". This is not an argument in this case.
> so you are better of not making reactionary changes
> to packages. It is important to learn when a change does not need
> implemented, and this change was probably not needed when no TU had
> posted about having issues with the split packages.
This change was neither reactionary nor unneeded, just because it was
not possible to install this package. So this change was needed. So
don't mix up the facts.
In the repos like [community] split packages are supported and are no
problem. And in the repos there's no need for such dirty workarounds. In
AUR it is totally different. And that is just a fact, even if you don't
want to hear that.
More information about the aur-general