[aur-general] [review-request] python-intelhex

[Quentin Bourgeois]

On 17-01-23 22:53:35, Eli Schwartz via aur-general wrote:
> On 01/23/2017 08:42 PM, Quentin Bourgeois wrote:
> > Thus, I decide to have a look at the PKGBUILD and suggest some
> > modifications I guess the maintainer will be glad to merge any
> > proposal, but did the community see any thing more to change ?
> > Basically I made use a lot more of its internal variable __pkgname,
> > define python{,2}-setuptools as makedepends and add the license file
> > to the package.
> 
> Right, so comment on the AUR that the dependencies are not installed.
> This is a simple, *standard* fix, and as Justin said, asking for
> feedback here is a bit... odd. Asking for guidance writing your own
> PKGBUILDs is one thing (and serves, most of all, to help users learn how
> to do it properly themeselves), asking us to pick apart selected AUR
> packages that you happen to use is another thing entirely.
> 
> Also, nitpicking over the *extent* of others' use of templating
> variables like _pkgname is classless, moreso when your own (over)use of
> __license_filename is a wasteful overreaction.

In fact I was included my previously mail to the mailing as part as my
learning experience. My thought was to I don't forget anything I was
not relying on the community to make my proposal applied.
(Note that using external git was not to takeover or whatsoever the
package but just a way to sharing my ideas).

Anyway, thanks Eli for opening a new request on the project page.

> 
> > In another way I don't really understand the rm on the bin directory?
> > The problem I saw is that only installing python2-intelhex wont allow
> > the use of the provided scripts[2]. However, I conducted small
> > tests and they seems to works even with python2. So my guess is to
> > create an other AUR PKGBUILD that will perform pretty the same things
> > but only packaging the provided scripts, let call this package
> > python-intelhex-scripts. Then, one need to enforce a dependencies of
> > python{,2}-intelhex with python-intelhex-script at the same upstream
> > release version.
> 
> Absolutely not, this package is doing it the standard and recommended
> way. And splitting the scripts would not achieve your goal anyway, since
> the version of python is hardcoded in the shebang -- hence why you
> yourself explicitly depended on "python", which is not provided by
> "python2" under any circumstances!
> 
> But if you were to split them out, they should've been a third split
> package in the same PKGBUILD.
> 

Duly noted, I keep this technique for posterity.

> -- 
> Eli Schwartz
> 



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/attachments/20170125/7db24393/attachment.asc>