[aur-general] Proofreading request
scimmia22 at outlook.com
Tue Aug 27 14:22:02 EDT 2013
> Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 13:50:30 -0400
> From: d at falconindy.com
> To: aur-general at archlinux.org
> Subject: Re: [aur-general] Proofreading request
> On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 10:34:56AM -0500, Doug Newgard wrote:
>>> Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 10:04:37 +0200
>>> From: cju.arch at gmail.com
>>> To: aur-general at archlinux.org
>>> Subject: Re: [aur-general] Proofreading request
>>> 2013/8/27 Taylor Lookabaugh <jesus.christ.i.love at gmail.com>
>>>> On 08/27/13 00:35, Clément Junca wrote:
>>>>> Yes, you're right. Sorry. Here is the good one.
>>>> You haven't attached anything to this mail.
>>>> PS: make sure you reply below the quotes in a mailing list, easier to
>>>> read top to bottom.
>>> That's strange, I see the tar.gz file in my sent mail. Here are the files
>>> from the archive.
>> My notes:
>> 1. Get rid of all of the empty variables (groups, provides, etc)
>> 2. Definitely add the license file to the source array.
>> 3. The cd .. at the end of the pkgver function is useless.
>> 4. Applying the patch should be done in a prepare() function, you don't need a build() function at all in this case.
>> 5. You don't need || exit 1. The functions are called in a way so it will already exit if there are errors.
>> 6. install -D will make the dirs it needs, you don't need to make them yourself with mkdir -p.
>> 7. The comment in the pkgver function doesn't match what it's doing, it's not using a tag.
>> 8. If you do install the default config file, you should add it to the backup array so that pacman doesn't overwrite it every time you upgrade.
>> I will disagree with the previous posters on a couple of things.
>> 1. There's nothing wrong with using ../../LICENSE as long as you know what dir you're in.
> Yes. There is. You don't, and you can't know what directories are above
> you in this case. This PKGBUILD will fail when [[ -n $BUILDDIR ]] is
> More pertinent, not adding the LICENSE file to the source array means
> that 'makepkg -S' doesn't include this file. That the file is still
> included is a sign of a manually crafted source tarball and a huge red
I think you missed the part where I said "as long as you know what dir you're in". You're right that using ../../ in this case, you have no idea where you are, but that doesn't mean that using relative paths is bad, which is how I took the post I was referring to. If I misunderstood, I apologize.
>> 2. There is nothing wrong with cd-ing directly to $_gitname, although I prefer $srcdir/$_gitname myself
More information about the aur-general