[aur-general] TU Application: Daniel M. Capella

Daniel M. Capella polycitizen at gmail.com
Thu Nov 15 23:51:31 UTC 2018

Quoting Eli Schwartz via aur-general (2018-11-15 00:52:50)
> On 11/14/18 11:50 PM, Daniel M. Capella via aur-general wrote:
> > Quoting Levente Polyak via aur-general (2018-11-14 17:00:38)
> >> - tests are awesome <3 run them whenever possible! more is better!
> >>   pulling sources from github is favorable when you get free tests
> >>   and sometimes manpages/docs
> > 
> > Will work with the upstreams to distribute these. I prefer to use published
> > offerings as they are what the authors intend to be used. GitHub autogenerated
> > tarballs are also subject to change:
> > https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-ports&m=151973450514279&w=2
> I've seen the occasional *claim* that this happens, but I've yet to see
> any actual case where this happens and it isn't because of upstream
> force-pushing a tag.
> GitHub is supposed to use git-archive(1) for this, which is guaranteed
> to be reproducible when generating .tar, although in theory
> post-filtering this through a compressor like gzip can result in changes
> from one version of git to another. I say in theory because I don't
> recall this ever happening, and git-archive uses the fairly boring defaults.
> I don't see any reason to use substandard sources in order to avoid
> checksum problems I don't believe in.

"substandard" 🤔 https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Python_package_guidelines#Source

> > For Rust sources there's also this problem:
> > https://doc.rust-lang.org/cargo/faq.html#why-do-binaries-have-cargolock-in-version-control-but-not-libraries
> > 
> > Crates explicitly filter out lock files. `publish-lockfile` for binary crates
> > is still only available in Cargo nightly. Communication is already in
> > progress with the relevant upstreams.
> I have no clue what this is even supposed to mean. I'm reading your link
> and it says that "it's conventional" for upstream developers of rust
> applications to commit their lockfiles to git, but not to do so for
> libraries. Given that one builds applications, and not libraries, I'm
> unsure what the problem is here.
> Do you mean to say that crates.io doesn't ship all the files available
> in git? Okay, I agree that git is the superior source. I don't generally
> trust "intelligent" tools to decide what's important.
> Still not sure what this doc describing the split between libraries and
> binaries, has to do with anything.


> >> python-soco:
> >> - there are tests available for check() via py.test
> > 
> > Requires jumping through hoops. See the note:
> > https://soco.readthedocs.io/en/latest/development/unittests.html?highlight=test#running-the-unit-tests
> Sounds like they have two sets of tests: some unittests for the code
> correctness, plus unittests to test the interaction with an online server.
> Also sounds like the former, which are all we care about I suppose,
> should be easy to do without any hoops, just by running pytest?

Yeah, I tried that.

> >> - do we _really_ need to split razer mouse tool UI and daemon here?
> >> doubt it tbh.
> > 
> > The UI is completely optional. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
> Why does this mean they cannot be a single package?
> -- 
> Eli Schwartz
> Bug Wrangler and Trusted User

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: signature
URL: <https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/attachments/20181115/3db8908c/attachment.asc>

More information about the aur-general mailing list