Dan McGee wrote:
<snip>
So some of the next steps:
* Get consensus on whether the script side of the signing stuff is in
a good enough state. This is basically the first 5 patches on my 'gpg'
branch. Does anyone want to raise any objections, suggestions, or have
comments?
I had a good look at the makepkg/repo-add patches today and I think it
is "in a good enough state". Despite having no idea what I am doing
with gpg, I took them for a quick spin and they appear to do what is
intended.
My only comment is minor. In:
makepkg: allow signatures to work with split packages
http://code.toofishes.net/cgit/dan/pacman.git/commit/?h=gpg&id=12ccd781
this naming seems strange:
local pkg_file="$PKGDEST/${nameofpkg}-${pkgver}-${pkgrel}-${PKGARCH}${EXT}"
+ local
zip_file="$PKGDEST/${nameofpkg}-${pkgver}-${pkgrel}-${PKGARCH}${PKGEXT}"
zip_file is actually the package file and pkg_file is the uncompressed
package file. So how about changing these to tar_file and pkg_file
respectively?
Allan
