[pacman-dev] [PATCH] Provide a better guess about who the packager is.

Kieran Colford kieran at kcolford.com
Wed Feb 1 01:33:26 UTC 2017

I would have added better defaults for when getent returns nothing for us
to use, but my bash skills aren't up to par for that. I would love to get a
better fallback for that. Currently it will just give a blank if you didn't
set your full name in /etc/passwd

I also didn't realize the hostname command wasn't included in base-devel.
It didn't even occur to me to not have it. I can further fallback on uname
-n like you suggested or even echo localhost

A system configured according to the wiki will give even more distinctive
and useful information with hostname --fqdn than it will with just uname
-n, so I would keep it as the default and fallback to uname if it doesn't
work. The

On Tue, Jan 31, 2017, 7:47 PM Eli Schwartz, <eschwartz93 at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 01/31/2017 05:10 PM, Kieran Colford wrote:
> > The system usually has enough information in various places to guess
> > the name and email of the person running the makepkg script. Use these
> > instead of defaulting to "Unknown Packager" to minimize configuration
> > necessary by the user.  This particular implemenation should provide
> > relatively good guess that's compatible with other programs
> > (i.e. git).
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Kieran Colford <kieran at kcolford.com>
> > ---
> >  scripts/makepkg.sh.in | 2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/scripts/makepkg.sh.in b/scripts/makepkg.sh.in
> > index 29408929..65114862 100644
> > --- a/scripts/makepkg.sh.in
> > +++ b/scripts/makepkg.sh.in
> > @@ -618,7 +618,7 @@ write_pkginfo() {
> >       if [[ -n $PACKAGER ]]; then
> >               local packager="$PACKAGER"
> >       else
> > -             local packager="Unknown Packager"
> > +             local packager="${NAME:-$(getent passwd ${USER:-$(whoami)}
> | cut -d : -f 5 | cut -d , -f 1)} <${EMAIL:-${USER:-$(whoami)}@$(hostname
> --fqdn)}>"
> What happens when someone initially created their user without making
> use of the "useradd --comment" option? I know I didn't bother...
> Do you have a fallback for when that is empty?
> More: what about building in a clean chroot? This will invariably
> produce nothing but "bash: hostname: command not found" on stderr. (But
> the "$NAME" would evaluate to "builduser" anyway. I am not entirely sure
> why that field is even filled out with that much in the first place, but
> that is another matter entirely...)
> That would be because "hostname" is provided by inetutils, which is not
> installed as part of base-devel.
> Warning: Personal opinion follows.
> I personally dislike its useless output of "localhost.localdomain" too,
> even when git uses that. (I would much prefer using the local machine
> name at least, available through e.g. uname -n which is at least
> guaranteed available as part of coreutils, besides being 100% more
> distinctive for the average home system.)
> >       fi
> >
> >       local size="$(@DUPATH@ @DUFLAGS@)"
> >
> Trying to scrape information from the OS in order to get better defaults
> is not a terrible idea, but getting rid of any fallback whatsoever in
> the process doesn't strike me as useful.
> I also think everyone, without exception, should be configuring their
> makepkg.conf to provide an *actual* email, rather than falling back to
> the machine name. For the same reason that git users should do so (and
> git redeems itself by verbosely warning you every time you rely on that
> autodetected value). Unless of course they simply don't care about that
> field, in which case we can probably use "flbkoaasdfklpopefevq" instead
> of "Unknown Packager", and they'd never notice the difference.
> Though as I have no actual power here, I probably cannot get *that*
> enforced. :(
> --
> Eli Schwartz
> --

Signed, Kieran Colford

More information about the pacman-dev mailing list