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

[Eli Schwartz]

On 02/01/2017 08:33 AM, Kieran Colford wrote:
> Would you care to share with us what pile of shit it returns? I can't
> fix something when I don't know what's wrong.

I already told you a few things... maybe Allan didn't want to repeat
what has already been said.

> I never suggested that we work around laziness, people should
> absolutely configure their system properly (I personally think
> violators should be punished with regular kernel panics, but I don't
> think Linus will accept my patch).

I don't understand how you can say this...

> I'm just trying to give default values

... and then this. Which is "to minimize configuration necessary by the
user" according to your original patch message.

> that conform to what a user expects to see: if they added a real name
> on account creation then it should show up wherever a real name is
> needed, if they set the EMAIL environment variable then software
> should assume that's the user's email and use it. Those are both
> recommended by the wiki too.

Honestly, trying to extract this information from sources that most
people don't bother to set up properly, and which I certainly never saw
recommended, seems kind of silly. The fact that proper laziness (by
looking for as many farfetched sources of substandard information as
possible) requires ugly and hackish code, should be a turnoff too; you
are trying to do too much.

If anything, maybe makepkg.conf should be responsible for properly
setting PACKAGER by default, from "$NAME <${EMAIL}>".
If they haven't set that data somewhere, I do not see how you can
possibly justify the unambiguous laziness involved in using *untrue*
values that are *guessed* from hostname analysis, and will *not* be what
the user actually wants in any situation! The proper solution is to...
use makepkg.conf as it is intended to be used!*

It seems to me that you have the (partially) right solution to the wrong
problem. And you might be looking in the wrong place to fix it, too.
This would be better suited to the tooling used to build package
repositories, especially since that will catch the info outside of build
chroots and pass it into the chroot.

-- 
Eli Schwartz


* I have to wonder, which people aren't setting their makepkg.conf who
actually look at the Packager information. The former will be the less
savvy AUR users, and the latter will be people looking at packages
someone else built.
I don't know of anyone publishing pacman repos who don't set their
makepkg.conf...

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/attachments/20170201/31d1ac01/attachment-0001.asc>