Le 08/11/2018 à 04:34, Santiago Torres-Arias via aur-general a écrit : >>> - 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...
We have a instructions here: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/PKGBUILD#license (which redirects to the actual licenses package for a list of what is common). ;) >>> - 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. Please don’t start cloning a repo just for some small patches that can be retrieved by this stable and long-lived GitHub API. And @Brett, no, you should not carry the patch locally. No reason to clobber our tree with that. ;) Regards, Bruno
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
