[aur-general] TU Membership Application

[Santiago Torres-Arias]

> >    - I marked the package as out-of-date, as there appears to be a new
> >      version (3.1.4.15) as of almost two months ago.
> 
> Long story short, that was pretty much exactly during the time when I
> accidentally clobbered my urlwatch file. Thanks for bringing that up to me.
> 
> >    - I noticed that you didn't add a LICENSE file for this package.
> 
> Artistic2.0 is a uncommonly used common license!
> (/usr/share/licenses/common/Artistic2.0/license.txt)
> 
> 

Yes, my bad. I was told about this on MIT, and I assumed this was the
case for most licenses...

> > - hib-dlagent:
> >    - I see that you backported a patch on this and ags. I was rather
> >      surprised to see that neither patches were added to new
> >      tags/releases. You could, however, cherry pick the commits rather
> >      than depending on the github api (which can change) to compute the
> >      diff for you. For this, you could use the git transport on
> >      makepkg.
> 
> That would bring another dependency on git, though. I can surely do if if
> it's more 'correct' but I wouldn't imagine that Github would change that API
> anytime soon.
> 
> Or would it be better to just carry the patch locally in the repo?

True, I didn't consider the dependency on git. I'd say you could check
it in. I do not agree with Eli that you should rely on api's like this
to get a simple patch. It has been my experience that api's like this
move around and leave you trying to debug weird errors.
> 
> >    - I noticed that you didn't add a LICENSE file for this package.
> 
> Yikes, the project doesn't even have a license! I should have checked that
> when I inherited it (the packager just slapped a GPL2 on it). Really, I had
> just uploaded it so it wouldn't have been lost after the AUR 4 migration.
> 
> I'll bug upstream about it.
> 
> > - gam-git:
> >  ...
 
> Of all the packages you had to click on that one. :(
> 
> I know it doesn't really excuse it but gam is sort of a "WIP" because
> it's... oddly written. I've been meaning to set aside some time to get some
> patches in to make it more palatable for packaging. The patch is a complete
> hack right now just to make the package "work" (when I inherited it it was
> FUBAR).

Yes, granted I'm rather confused when I read the repository and see
things like build-linux.sh that pulls pyinstaller. I didn't know exactly
what of all was happening there...
> 
> > I will probably send more feedback, but I also don't want to overwhelm
> > you with this and all the other reviews around.
> 
> I really appreciate the feedback! It always sucks when so many little things
> become so glaring after the fact but

Lol I've been there, no worries :)

-Santiago.
-------------- 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/20181107/0055ef9a/attachment.asc>