[aur-general] Promoting use of .AURINFO

Jerome Leclanche adys.wh at gmail.com
Sat Jan 18 04:14:26 EST 2014

On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Lukas Fleischer
<archlinux at cryptocrack.de> wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 at 03:11:54, Dave Reisner wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 06:31:40PM -0500, Dave Reisner wrote:
>> > On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 08:52:46PM +0100, Lukas Fleischer wrote:
>> > > 3) duplicate a lot of stuff in the pkgname section, even if it's
>> > >    identical to what is listed in the pkgbase section.
>> >
>> > That shouldn't be the case. What package were you looking at that shows
>> > this in the .AURINFO?  The goal is that pkgbase section provides the
>> > bulk of the metadata -- the individual pkgname sections are only
>> > overrides and supplements. The GetMergedPackage def in the python parser
>> > illustrates how the base and "overlay" create each output package.
>> Nevermind this -- I found cases where this happens. Fixed locally, just
>> need to write some regression tests.
> Great! I just submitted some patches to the AUR to add support for the
> new format and add a deprecation warning for packages not containing any
> meta data [1].
> [1] https://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-dev/2014-January/002616.html

Any comments on using a more standard format for the file?
I mentioned I do a lot of domain-specific packaging, and in order to
integrate with arch linux the .PKGINFO file format itself (and
cousins) has to be parsed. Having a common base format helps, a lot.

J. Leclanche

More information about the aur-general mailing list