[aur-general] PKGBUILD review request: libdime-hg
eschwartz93 at gmail.com
Sun Jul 31 02:22:20 UTC 2016
On 07/30/2016 11:56 AM, Alessandro Menti wrote:
> Hi everyone,
> I've just started writing some PKGBUILDs for some programs that are not
> present neither in the official package repository nor in the AUR.
> Specifically, I've packaged libdime  as a required dependency for the
> X-Plane developer tools .
> I'm attaching the PKGBUILD below - if someone on this list could review
> it, that would be much appreciated. I've also got the following questions:
> 1) Is it correct to name the package "libdime-hg" only because its
> sources are checked out from a Mercurial repository (that's because
> no official tarballs exist any more - the Debian copyright file for
> the library  points to a now dismissed FTP site ), or should I
> just name it "libdime"?
> 2) On the same note, assuming that naming the package "libdime-hg" is
> correct, does it make sense to put
> in the PKGBUILD? I've thought to put these two lines as "safeguards"
> in case I need to distinguish between a libdime VCS and non-VCS package
> in the future.
> Cheers and thanks in advance,
> Alessandro Menti
*-hg/*-git/*-svn packages do not mean the source was checked out using
those protocols, they mean that the package builds from the latest
development sources and that therefore the PKGBUILD will automatically
build e.g. the latest revision (or the latest revision of a particular
development branch, depending on your scenario).
Unless you actually mean to indicate that that package fundamentally
builds the development version from hg "tip", please use the version
tarballs available at
In this case, there do not appear to be tags, so just go with the latest
commit hash. But still, it is false to claim that it is a development
I don't know how you would go about calculating the actual pkgver
though, if the repository doesn't seem to have tagged releases or proper
More information about the aur-general