[aur-requests] Answer to: [PRQ#10517] Orphan Request for ndi-sdk

[Daniel Bermond]

On 02/07/2018, Eli Schwartz via aur-requests wrote:> I too agree with your reasoning, and in some cases like the proposed
> change to actually running the installer.sh feel that this is totally
> wrong, serving no purpose except to run an obtuse script rather than
> extracting a tarball.
>
> Moving the headers to /usr/include/ndi-sdk does *not* make a lot of
> sense considering that they are extremely unlikely to clash with
> anything else, and moving to a subdirectory would cause the Arch Linux
> package to require specifying -I/usr/include/ndi-sdk for projects that
> need it rather than relying on the global /usr/include path. And there
> is no pkg-config file to standardize this...
>> See how many repo packages have top-level headers...
Thank you Eli for agreeing too. And thank you also for reinforcing my objections against the proposed changes ;)

> glibc does not "need" to be a dependency. A majority of packages in the
> repos *and* the AUR require a working glibc, but we don't usually list
> it as a dependency. glibc is in the base group, and dozens of vital
> system components rely on it. If you don't have glibc installed, your
> system is so completely and utterly borked, that ndi-sdk will not even
> be noticed in the mess. ;)
>
> That being said, there is certainly no rule against adding it. I
> certainly wouldn't, though, just as I don't add dependencies on, say, bash.
>
> It is really up to the maintainer.
I see, and I also agree that adding some dependencies that are in base group is unnecessary. But AUR users sometimes complain about the namcap output when it lists some missing dependencies, or some other namcap errors/warnings. In this ndi-sdk case, namcap tells that 'glibc' is missing, and AUR user 'pschichtel' mentioned "namcap compliance" in the ndi-sdk AUR webpage.
People don't realize that a clean namcap output should not be considered a standard in terms of packaging, because many times it gives undesired results. I think that it should be clearly stated on namcap Arch Wiki page, so people will stop to complain about every package that does not give a clean namcap output. It's not the first time that I receive such kind of namcap comment on the AUR packages that I maintain.

> Some AUR users are nudniks. Ignore them. We do...
Thank you for the advice. I'll try to follow it :)
--Daniel M. Bermonde-Mail: danielbermond at yahoo.com 
    Em Quarta-feira, 7 de Fevereiro de 2018 14:06, Alad Wenter <alad at mailbox.org> escreveu:
 

 On Wed, Feb 07, 2018 at 04:00:52PM +0000, Daniel Bermond via aur-requests wrote:


> Hi,
> I'm the maintainer of AUR package ndi-sdk. This package has received an orphan request in February 7, 2018 and I would like to defend myself against this orphan request.
>
Yes, this is the correct place to answer on orphan requests. Anyway I
agree with your reasoning so I've rejected the request.

Alad


   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-requests/attachments/20180207/b92cf9bd/attachment.html>