[aur-general] TU Application: Bruno Pagani

Maxime Gauduin alucryd at archlinux.org
Sun Jan 8 18:19:44 UTC 2017

Hi Bruno,

Nice to see a fellow beets lover apply! Your PKGBUILDs look nice and tidy, you'll most likely fit right in :)

You piqued my interest with bs1770gain, any idea how it fares speed-wise against the default gstreamer backend? I kept using wine + foobar2000 to compute my replaygain values even after transitioning to beets because it's infinitely faster than using gstreamer.


January 8, 2017 4:42 PM, "Bruno Pagani via aur-general" <aur-general at archlinux.org> wrote:

> Le 07/01/2017 à 16:05, NicoHood a écrit :
>> Hey Bruno,
>> nice to hear that you want to join the great ArchLinux project as TU. I
>> am aware the discussion period has not started yet, but I think its fine
>> if I already give some feedback.
> Hi Nico,
> You’ve been very fast indeed, but the discussion period started right
> after anyway. ;)
>> I've checked your PKGBUILDs and I've noted a few thinks (which I also
>> did wrong or sometimes forget). Those are mostly only concerning
>> security aspects which I find important. If you followed the recent
>> discussion you might have noticed that some people differ from this
>> opinion. Please take it as a kind notice for you, use it if you wish :)
>> * For github download .tar.gz is preferred over .zip in general if i am
>> not wrong.
> Assuming you refer to audiothumbs-frameworks and ring-kde, I wasn’t
> aware GitHub was providing .tar.gz downloads for snapshots tarballs
> (they are not provided in the UI), but I admit not having tried a simple
> substitution of file extension, which indeed works. Strange lack of
> curiosity from my part. I’ve fixed both of them, thanks!
>> * Prefix your source download with: ${pkgname}-${pkgver}.tar.xz:: if you
>> have a common SRCDIR. I also recently change to a common src dir, as too
>> many packages blow my directories.
> Can you please specify which package(s) you have in mind here? I’ve just
> checked again and didn’t found any package where I don’t do this and
> upstream tarball doesn’t follow this either.
>> * You can use https for sourceforge downloads soon/now[1] (bs1770gain)
> Yes, and that is already what I do. Maybe you’ve overlooked or are
> talking of “Upstream URL” (in which case this doesn’t work).
>> * Thanks for using sha256sums. You may want to use the even stronger
>> sha512sums, as it does not hurt to use stronger hashes *duck*
> Stronger is relative (they’re mathematically the sames, breaking one in
> an applicable way probably means breaking both). Does not hurt too.
> Everything has been said around this in this list some months ago, I’ll
> not start that debate again. I’ll only provide sha512 if this is what
> upstream provides or a new policy going that way is adopted by
> ArchLinux, which currently isn’t the case AFAIK.
>> * certbot-user: the gpg keys should have a comment with the owner of the
>> trusted keys (as you did with exfalso, but with email)
> Sure, fixed. :) I’ve also fixed it in scribus-devel where it has
> apparently escaped your review. ;)
>> * mpd-{sserver,}minimal uses a sha1sum. If its an upstream hash please
>> contact them to use stronger hashes and include a stronger one as well.
>> You can use multiple hashes in the PKGBUILD (as in weboob-headless).
> Like most of my -light or -minimal packages, hashes are from the repo
> package. When they are upstream ones too (KDE packages notably), I
> verify them, but here it’s not the case AFAIK. Those packages also use a
> PGP key, so I could remove the sum altogether as the wiki proposes. But
> actually this is one almost valid use case where I agree on switching to
> stronger checksum: packages being on AUR, and AUR being full of people
> that don’t understand PGP and its support in makepkg, the use of
> --skippgpcheck is probably frequent. Then, even if this is not a
> behaviour to be encouraged, having a strong verified checksum here is
> probably better for those users. I’ve thus switched them to sha256sums.
> That way, people relying on PGP still get the full verification, while
> people skipping it get a checksum that I’ve computed after PGP
> verification of the same tarball.
>> * powerdevil/spectacle-light uses http downloads. Even though gpg
>> signatures are used, it would be nice to have https available anyways.
>> It seems kde missconfigured their download subdomain for https, so you
>> might want to contact them about that?
> Yes, KDE doesn’t provides https at the moment. I’ve reported a bug
> upstream[0] (failed to find any open or close one relating to this).
>> * What I also do is to put my own GPG ID inside my PKGBUILDs, so people
>> can simpler verify/find my key. Just as an idea.
> What purpose does that serve (outside of cluttering the PKGBUILD)? My
> fingerprint is already in my AUR account profile[1] for that matter.
>> * For those projects who dont use GPG signatures yet, you might want to
>> kindly contact them. I've written a script + instructions for using gpg
>> along with a template to contact upstreams[2]. You might want to check
>> it out.
> And I don’t like it. Because (good) PGP is not easy, and PGP signatures
> for the sake of PGP signatures are not a good idea. If you want to be
> able to trust a sig, you need to trust the key and the behaviour of his
> owner regarding PGP. And I won’t trust a sig issued by someone that only
> did it to satisfy you, rather than deeply thought about it and its
> implications. Also, automated is rarely a good idea when it comes to PGP.
>> * If you want to move whipper, please consider to take part in the
>> discussion about gpg[3]. Please dont take it personally, some people
>> found them personally offended, while this was not the intention. You
>> have the chance to also speak up for stronger security. I do not want to
>> end this in an offtopic discussion, maybe you can help too ;)
> Done. But as you might have expected since last paragraph, didn’t went
> your way.
> Regards,
> Bruno
> [0] https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=374741
> [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/ArchangeGabriel


More information about the aur-general mailing list