[aur-general] Promoting use of .AURINFO
diffident.cat at gmail.com
Sun Jan 12 09:51:48 EST 2014
On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 02:35:33PM +0100, Lukas Fleischer wrote:
> I think we should promote the use of .AURINFO files. Currently, only a
> very small fraction of packages use it. A basic description of its
> format can be found in the commit message of AUR commit 5a11373 .
> Regardless of whether we keep that format or use something entirely
> different for metadata later, it is good to have this information stored
> somewhere and the format is simple enough to migrate to another format
> I think we should at least come up with a tiny tool to generate this
> kind of metadata post-makepkg and put it into the source tarball, then
> add some information to the submission section in the official AUR wiki
> article . Does anyone have plans to write such a tool? Did anyone
> already integrate this functionality into an existing AUR uploader? If
> no one steps up, I might attempt to write one on my own in a couple of
> I might also add a deprecation warning for source tarballs without
> .AURINFO files in one of the upcoming AUR releases.
>  https://projects.archlinux.org/aur.git/commit/?id=5a1137363cb358593a64e0e6d0b0adeb1a9514ff
>  https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/AUR_User_Guidelines#Submitting_packages
I was under the impression that .AURINFO was introduced to override some
fields in PKGBUILD when they are written in format which can't be properly
displayed by AUR (or maybe I've missed something). But why do you want to
force it's usage for all packages? In most cases AURINFO will just
duplicate same fields from PKGBUILD.
Also I have some questions about it's format:
1) If package has different dependencies for 86_64 and 686, what should I
put in depend array?
2) Which 'pkgname' will be unique - from PKGBUILD or AURINFO? E.g if I
upload package with name 'foo' and overriden name 'bar' will someone
be able to upload new package with name 'foo'? Or 'bar'?
More information about the aur-general