On 06/04/2018 12:50 PM, Robin Broda via arch-general wrote: > I've got a couple of complaints regarding your existing packages > > On 06/04/2018 07:29 PM, David C. Rankin wrote: >> https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/cflow/ > provides=("${pkgname") is implicit; > url= & source= can be reached via https - update them! > Thank you for the feedback. cflow - updated. I'll push the new set after answers to questions below. >> https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/gtkwrite_git/ > The license is invalid, and please don't call it `foo_git` - > instead use the common `foo-git`; > You're also missing `git` as makedep, and `gtksourceview2` as normal dep > I changed the name, but when a user builds with the new name gtkwrite-git, instead of gtkwrite_git and attempts an install -- will there be a problem that requires manual intervention due to the name change? Is there anything else I need to do to change gtkwrite_git to gtkwrite-git -- other than change the name (and update the parameter expansions)? >> https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/gtkwrite/ > The license is invalid > Don't conflicts=() with the -git version or whatever, > that's what the other packages providing your pkgname should do, > not the other way around; > You're also missing `gtksourceview2` as normal dep > Fixed - thanks again. > In general, > cd "${srcdir}" is redundant, > stop (ab)using msg() and msg2(), & > get rid of the unused assignments. > What is wrong with using msg() or msg2()? I had one short output within each prepare(), build(), and package() that simply outputs the stage of the build, e.g. msg2 'prepare() gtkwrite - done' I have removed them, but I've never had anyone say that was abusing their usage. Is there any particular reason that makes an informational output like above wrong? -- David C. Rankin, J.D.,P.E.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
