[aur-general] Request to check my PKGBUILD and suggest me some improvements

Eli Schwartz eschwartz93 at gmail.com
Tue Aug 16 13:10:29 UTC 2016

On 08/16/2016 06:54 AM, Patrick Eigensatz via aur-general wrote:
> I usually do run my shellscripts via ./ too, but when I experimented with
> makepkg I experienced some errors and I wasn't sure if makepkg would know
> how to interpret ./ so I wrote sh. I'll change this back soon.

What kind of errors? Since the two formats should be exactly the same
unless the shellscript is not marked as executable...
This may just be a style nit, but mysterious errors aren't a style nit
-- they are something you should understand, rather than simply avoid.

Oh, another "good practice" suggestion:

For the source array, use

This will rename the source tarball so it won't clash with other
downloads, since GitHub uses the same style of pkgver-based url
locations (with content-disposition, which makepkg doesn't respect, to
rename it properly).

Why does this matter? Only because if someone uses a common $SRCDEST
(see `man makepkg.conf`) they might have a different file with the same
name which makepkg will assume is the file it wants (then fail the
integrity check).

Eli Schwartz

More information about the aur-general mailing list