[aur-general] Enforcing AUR package quality (was Re: Trusted user application: Drew DeVault)

[Daniel M. Capella]

On February 28, 2019 11:33:36 AM EST, "brent s." <bts at square-r00t.net> wrote:
>On 2/28/19 11:22 AM, Daniel M. Capella via aur-general wrote:
>> On February 28, 2019 8:58:06 AM EST, Jerome Leclanche
><jerome at leclan.ch> wrote:
>> 
>> <snip>
>> 
>>> OT: We should maybe have the AUR lint PKGBUILDs on git push (and
>>> reject really bad ones) if we want to improve that situation.
>>>
>>> J. Leclanche
>> 
>> I've been thinking enforcing the use of makechrootpkg and namcap on
>package submission should be introduced, and maybe even on major (and
>minor?) version bumps for packages following semver. Inb4 yes I'm aware
>of the number of false-positives in namcap.
>> 
>> --
>> Best,
>> polyzen
>> 
>
>you could get around the namcap false-positives by maybe assigning a
>"quality score" instead of a pass/fail, with a certain required
>threshold set.
>
>there aren't really enough data points for a really useful scoring in
>namcap alone, though, so you'd want to implement other scoring points
>too.
>e.g.:
>- 50 for a successful makechrootpkg
>- 10 for each namcap test pass
>- 10 for proper comment per spec[0] (i.e. '#\s*(M|m)aintainer:', etc.)
>
>and anything higher than, i dunno, 70 or 80 is considered pass and
>below
>is fail.
>
>or just attach a warning for each namcap failure to the package's info
>in the AUR.
>
>
>[0]
>https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_package_guidelines#PKGBUILD_prototype

Listing the false-positives could be good, especially as that would point out what needs to be improved in namcap.

--
Best,
polyzen