[aur-general] TU application, sponsored by Lukas Fleischer
archlinux at cryptocrack.de
Tue Jan 21 05:07:37 EST 2014
On Tue, 21 Jan 2014 at 09:31:41, Doug Newgard wrote:
> Ok, so let's look at just that one.
I must admit that I only had a look at very few packages before agreeing
to the sponsorship. However I did advice Jonas to have a look at his
packages and update the one's that are flagged out-of-date before
submitting his application which he obviously did not do for some
I won't comment on any of the following questions and give Jonas a
chance to reply.
> What are "Unconfirmed makedeps"? Are they makedeps or aren't they?
> You set the backup array based on what is installed at build time, which has
> little to do with what is installed at install/run time. This works (somewhat)
> in the AUR but not at all in binary repos. Not only that, but you then set a new
> backup array right after it making the whole thing moot.
> You pull a bunch of files directly from master of a git repo. Very fragile.
> Your quoting of paths containing variables is very inconsistent, some are quoted
> then not quoted in the next line.
> Your use of curly braces is inconsistent.
> Sometimes you use mv, sometimes cp, and sometimes install. Why?
> Again, you're installing things based on what is installed at build time.
> That's from a cursory reading of your given example, without looking into it in
> detail or looking at the install file at all. You see what I mean? Many TUs have
> as many or more packages than you're talking about, and they're all expected to
> be in good shape.
Looking at more packages, I also noticed that some even still use
"$startdir" and some seem to have the "return" hack in build() that the
AUR required ages ago. It would be nice if you could clean those up
More information about the aur-general