On Mon, 01 Jun 2015 at 00:00:31, Gordian Edenhofer wrote: > [...] > > Why are checksums an issue? You can use the checksum of the correct > > file. It doesn't match the checksum of the dummy file but I don't see > > how that is an issue (it is even good since the user immediately > > notices > > that something is wrong with the dummy file). Another possibility is > > to > > tell makepkg to skip the integrity check. > > > > > And *if* we go for solution 2, it should indeed be well-documented. > > > > > > Best, Marcel > > > > > I am against dummy files and would even prefer dropping the patch in > favor of a clean processing of files.
What do you mean by "clean processing of files"? I consider the version with plausibility checks to be cleaner than the version without. > Correct me if I am wrong but since the information is extracted from > the .SRCINFO file, the package ttf-m-win8 should work just fine. The > only problem is which files are delivered and which shell be > downloaded. As things stand right now everything with " > ://" or "lp:" in its filename is considered an URL and therefore the > present of the file is not checked. This would potentially ignore cases > where those files are omitted though not downloadable. However > considering that this will help the vast majority where this schema > fits, the minority of missing warnings are neglectable. Sorry, but I do not follow your argument. The patch uses the same mechanism as makepkg to check whether a file is local.
