On 2/28/19 11:22 AM, Daniel M. Capella via aur-general wrote: > On February 28, 2019 8:58:06 AM EST, Jerome Leclanche <jer...@leclan.ch> > wrote: > > <snip> > >> OT: We should maybe have the AUR lint PKGBUILDs on git push (and >> reject really bad ones) if we want to improve that situation. >> >> J. Leclanche > > I've been thinking enforcing the use of makechrootpkg and namcap on package > submission should be introduced, and maybe even on major (and minor?) version > bumps for packages following semver. Inb4 yes I'm aware of the number of > false-positives in namcap. > > -- > Best, > polyzen >
you could get around the namcap false-positives by maybe assigning a "quality score" instead of a pass/fail, with a certain required threshold set. there aren't really enough data points for a really useful scoring in namcap alone, though, so you'd want to implement other scoring points too. e.g.: - 50 for a successful makechrootpkg - 10 for each namcap test pass - 10 for proper comment per spec[0] (i.e. '#\s*(M|m)aintainer:', etc.) and anything higher than, i dunno, 70 or 80 is considered pass and below is fail. or just attach a warning for each namcap failure to the package's info in the AUR. [0] https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_package_guidelines#PKGBUILD_prototype -- brent saner https://square-r00t.net/ GPG info: https://square-r00t.net/gpg-info
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
