On 09/14/2017 03:43 PM, Alad Wenter via aur-general wrote: > On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 01:01:58PM +0000, Evgeniy Alekseev wrote: >> Hai, >> >> On Sunday, 10 September 2017 19:55:16 MSK Eli Schwartz wrote: >>> python-i3-py: >>> - It is probably not important to point out in the description which >>> programming language it uses, especially when the pkgname already >>> includes that info. >>> - git source at pinned commit should not re-clone itself to a new >>> $pkgname-$pkgver every time you bump the pkgver >>> - Python packages which are intended to install a command-line tool >>> rather than a library should not be prefixed with python- and do not >>> need to be installed for both Python 3 and Python 2. >> >> BTW, it looks like this PKGBUILD works normally for this package, but in >> general calling setup.py with python3 interpreter assuming python2 build [1] >> is bad idea. Also it looks like the package has several licenses, e.g. >> winmenu.py header says WTFPL-v2 :) >> > Thanks, I've updated the build step and LICENSES. [2] > > [2] > https://github.com/AladW/community/commit/a48ba9a3ff917b596d89748a3a69e4f39e4b4398 > > Note that I installed the license to /usr/share/licenses/python-i3-py, > as python-i3-py is the common pkgbase. The PKGBUILD guidelines [3] > however mention to use pkgname - and namcap issues a warning > accordingly. Do these guidelines account for split packages? > > python-i3-py-examples E: Missing custom license directory > (usr/share/licenses/python-i3-py-examples) >
If a particular package has some special license, it should indeed install those into the license directory for that particular pkgname instead of pkgbase. Note that using $pkgbase could potentially also yield into a scenario where py2 and py3 variant can't be installed at the same time as the license file would conflict. cheers, Levente
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
