On Tue, 21 Jan 2014 at 09:31:41, Doug Newgard wrote: > [...] > Ok, so let's look at just that one. >
I must admit that I only had a look at very few packages before agreeing to the sponsorship. However I did advice Jonas to have a look at his packages and update the one's that are flagged out-of-date before submitting his application which he obviously did not do for some reason... :/ I won't comment on any of the following questions and give Jonas a chance to reply. > What are "Unconfirmed makedeps"? Are they makedeps or aren't they? > > You set the backup array based on what is installed at build time, which has > little to do with what is installed at install/run time. This works (somewhat) > in the AUR but not at all in binary repos. Not only that, but you then set a > new > backup array right after it making the whole thing moot. > > You pull a bunch of files directly from master of a git repo. Very fragile. > > Your quoting of paths containing variables is very inconsistent, some are > quoted > then not quoted in the next line. > > Your use of curly braces is inconsistent. > > Sometimes you use mv, sometimes cp, and sometimes install. Why? > > Again, you're installing things based on what is installed at build time. > > That's from a cursory reading of your given example, without looking into it > in > detail or looking at the install file at all. You see what I mean? Many TUs > have > as many or more packages than you're talking about, and they're all expected > to > be in good shape. Looking at more packages, I also noticed that some even still use "$startdir" and some seem to have the "return" hack in build() that the AUR required ages ago. It would be nice if you could clean those up soon.
