On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 11:50 PM, Allan McRae <[email protected]> wrote: > 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?
I have no objection to that; I'll make the adjustment locally at some point here. -Dan
