On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 11:56 AM, Allan McRae wrote:
> My summary of this:
>
> 1) Maintainer tag: It is a comment - makepkg does not care so nor should
> you
>
> 2) $foo vs ${foo} : they do the same thing (except in rare cases where
> brackets are needed...) - makepkg does not care so nor should y
On Tue, Apr 07, 2009 at 10:56:33AM +1000, Allan McRae wrote:
> My summary of this:
>
> 1) Maintainer tag: It is a comment - makepkg does not care so nor should
> you
>
> 2) $foo vs ${foo} : they do the same thing (except in rare cases where
> brackets are needed...) - makepkg does not car
My summary of this:
1) Maintainer tag: It is a comment - makepkg does not care so nor
should you
2) $foo vs ${foo} : they do the same thing (except in rare cases where
brackets are needed...) - makepkg does not care so nor should you.
3) "$srcdr" vs $srcdir. The quotes are good for people
On Tue, 7 Apr 2009 00:28:18 +
Ray Rashif wrote:
> I meant srcdir or pkgdir (:
I know, I just never noticed it. Now I've seen that it's mostly used
when changing directories and stuff. Dang, yet another thing to check
my scripts for..
Anyway, it would be nice if the usage of ${pkgver} and $p
I meant srcdir or pkgdir (:
Right..If that's the way it's enforced if at all.
On 06/04/2009, hollun...@gmx.at wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Apr 2009 05:35:15 +0800
> Ray Rashif wrote:
>
>> Scripting/coding style has been discussed before. To use ${pkgver}
>> instead of $pkgver is due to consistency. Techn
On Tue, 7 Apr 2009 05:35:15 +0800
Ray Rashif wrote:
> Scripting/coding style has been discussed before. To use ${pkgver}
> instead of $pkgver is due to consistency. Technically, the braces
> enable one to append to variables eg. ${pkgver}alpha. Another camp
> would like double-quotes as well. If
Scripting/coding style has been discussed before. To use ${pkgver} instead
of $pkgver is due to consistency. Technically, the braces enable one to
append to variables eg. ${pkgver}alpha. Another camp would like
double-quotes as well. If you remember, the reason for quotes on
${src,pkg}dir is the fa
On Mon, 6 Apr 2009 08:53:06 +0300
Evangelos Foutras wrote:
> I'm not sure if this has been mentioned before, but here's my take:
>
> - Maintainer: The person who currently maintains a package.
> - Contributor: The person who first submitted the package. If a
> package is so badly constructed tha
I'm not sure if this has been mentioned before, but here's my take:
- Maintainer: The person who currently maintains a package.
- Contributor: The person who first submitted the package. If a
package is so badly constructed that it needs to be rewritten from
scratch, the contributor tag would only
2009/4/6 José Valecillos :
> Then you must add all the past Contributors, even if they are 10 or 100?. On
> the other hand, in the web interface or when you install the package it
> don't show anything about the contributor, this should be there I think,
> dont' you?. I mean, you only can know who
2009/4/6 José Valecillos :
> Then you must add all the past Contributors, even if they are 10 or 100?. On
> the other hand, in the web interface or when you install the package it
> don't show anything about the contributor, this should be there I think,
> dont' you?. I mean, you only can know who
Then you must add all the past Contributors, even if they are 10 or 100?. On
the other hand, in the web interface or when you install the package it
don't show anything about the contributor, this should be there I think,
dont' you?. I mean, you only can know who is the contributor if you open the
2009/4/6 José Valecillos :
> I like option 1.- Should I remove the past contributor and add myself as a
> Contributor?. This is exactly like it is in /usr/share/pacman/PKGBUILD.proto
> example.
>
> --
> José Valecillos
>
The problem with this is that it's essentially claiming all the work
in the p
I like option 1.- Should I remove the past contributor and add myself as a
Contributor?. This is exactly like it is in /usr/share/pacman/PKGBUILD.proto
example.
--
José Valecillos
On Mon, Apr 06, 2009 at 12:43:41PM +1000, Allan McRae wrote:
> # Maintainer: Joe User
>
> Note the use of Maintainer... In the end, it is a comment and nothing more
> so who really cares about this.
Yep.
Here goes an section from the the PKGBUILD man page:
EXAMPLE
The following is an example PKGBUILD for the patch package. For more
examples, look through the build files of your distribution’s packages.
For those using Arch Linux, consult the ABS tree.
# Maintainer: Joe User
pkgname=patch
pkgve
> As I said before, it seems like the general consensus was in favor of
> changing it.
> http://www.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2008-October/002502.html
>
But this was the last reply [1] by foutrelis, and confused me.. seems
that even Aaron Griffin agree with having the maintainer tag for
On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 21:39, Xyne wrote:
> I think it makes the most sense to designate the person currently maintaining
> the package/PKGBUILD as the maintainer irrespective of that person's status
> in the community or the destination of the package/PKGBUILD. It immediately
> indicates to an
I think it makes the most sense to designate the person currently maintaining
the package/PKGBUILD as the maintainer irrespective of that person's status in
the community or the destination of the package/PKGBUILD. It immediately
indicates to anyone looking at the PKGBUILD whom they should conta
2009/4/5 Angel Velásquez :
> This should be 4.- and it's more like than my 2nd point .. then that
> point about Maintainer is just because exist a binary package in
> official repos and it's maintained by will be lost, so the concept
> will change to Maintainer is the people who actually owns the P
> 5. Change the previous maintainer tag to a contributor tag and add
> yourself as maintainer
>
> I don't quite follow... you say that you want to improve the method,
> but you insist that we don't change it and use the old one? Please
> correct me if I'm wrong
>
This should be 4.- and it's more li
On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 21:06, Loui Chang wrote:
> The accepted practice is to keep a contributor comment for all
> significant contributors of a PKGBUILD.
>
> I don't think it really matters if there's a maintainer comment or not.
> Maintainers for all packages are tracked by other means. That
> c
2009/4/5 Angel Velásquez :
> Hi, this thread were discussed in the history, so I think is time to
> clarify and put the correct information to the wiki. (Actually on the
> recent TU application and sunjdk package).
>
> IIRC:
>
> a) Maintainer tag in PKGBUILD is just use for people who maintain the
On Mon, Apr 06, 2009 at 08:20:41PM +1930, Angel Velásquez wrote:
> Hi, this thread were discussed in the history, so I think is time to
> clarify and put the correct information to the wiki. (Actually on the
> recent TU application and sunjdk package).
>
> IIRC:
>
> a) Maintainer tag in PKGBUILD
Hi, this thread were discussed in the history, so I think is time to
clarify and put the correct information to the wiki. (Actually on the
recent TU application and sunjdk package).
IIRC:
a) Maintainer tag in PKGBUILD is just use for people who maintain the
binary package generated by this PKGBUI
25 matches
Mail list logo
