> > - I marked the package as out-of-date, as there appears to be a new > > version (3.1.4.15) as of almost two months ago. > > Long story short, that was pretty much exactly during the time when I > accidentally clobbered my urlwatch file. Thanks for bringing that up to me. > > > - I noticed that you didn't add a LICENSE file for this package. > > Artistic2.0 is a uncommonly used common license! > (/usr/share/licenses/common/Artistic2.0/license.txt) > >
Yes, my bad. I was told about this on MIT, and I assumed this was the case for most licenses... > > - hib-dlagent: > > - I see that you backported a patch on this and ags. I was rather > > surprised to see that neither patches were added to new > > tags/releases. You could, however, cherry pick the commits rather > > than depending on the github api (which can change) to compute the > > diff for you. For this, you could use the git transport on > > makepkg. > > That would bring another dependency on git, though. I can surely do if if > it's more 'correct' but I wouldn't imagine that Github would change that API > anytime soon. > > Or would it be better to just carry the patch locally in the repo? True, I didn't consider the dependency on git. I'd say you could check it in. I do not agree with Eli that you should rely on api's like this to get a simple patch. It has been my experience that api's like this move around and leave you trying to debug weird errors. > > > - I noticed that you didn't add a LICENSE file for this package. > > Yikes, the project doesn't even have a license! I should have checked that > when I inherited it (the packager just slapped a GPL2 on it). Really, I had > just uploaded it so it wouldn't have been lost after the AUR 4 migration. > > I'll bug upstream about it. > > > - gam-git: > > ... > Of all the packages you had to click on that one. :( > > I know it doesn't really excuse it but gam is sort of a "WIP" because > it's... oddly written. I've been meaning to set aside some time to get some > patches in to make it more palatable for packaging. The patch is a complete > hack right now just to make the package "work" (when I inherited it it was > FUBAR). Yes, granted I'm rather confused when I read the repository and see things like build-linux.sh that pulls pyinstaller. I didn't know exactly what of all was happening there... > > > I will probably send more feedback, but I also don't want to overwhelm > > you with this and all the other reviews around. > > I really appreciate the feedback! It always sucks when so many little things > become so glaring after the fact but Lol I've been there, no worries :) -Santiago.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
