On February 28, 2019 11:33:36 AM EST, "brent s." <[email protected]> wrote: >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 ><[email protected]> 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
Listing the false-positives could be good, especially as that would point out what needs to be improved in namcap. -- Best, polyzen
