[aur-general] TU Membership Application

[Bruno Pagani]

Le 08/11/2018 à 04:34, Santiago Torres-Arias via aur-general a écrit :
>>>    - 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...

We have a instructions here:
https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/PKGBUILD#license (which redirects
to the actual licenses package for a list of what is common). ;)

>>> - 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.

Please don’t start cloning a repo just for some small patches that can
be retrieved by this stable and long-lived GitHub API. And @Brett, no,
you should not carry the patch locally. No reason to clobber our tree
with that. ;)

Regards,
Bruno


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/attachments/20181108/e8ef3645/attachment.asc>