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

Patrick Eigensatz patrickeigensatz at gmail.com
Tue Aug 16 17:12:21 UTC 2016

Eli Schwartz via aur-general <aur-general at archlinux.org> schrieb am Di.,
16. Aug. 2016, 15:10:

> 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
> source=("$pkgname-$pkgver.tar.gz::$url/archive/v$pkgver.tar.gz")
> 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

No, the errors I experienced were all PKGBUILD syntax related mistakes;
also I didn't know I could use full bash syntax in the PKGSRC file this is
why I "extended"   ./   to   sh    to eliminate possible error causes I
would not have been aware of.

Yes, indeed the github downloads all look the same. I'll implement your
suggestion soon, thank you!



More information about the aur-general mailing list