Re: [aur-general] [REVIEW REQUEST] python-viivakoodi

On 16-12-03 19:38:13, Eli Schwartz via aur-general wrote: > On 12/02/2016 08:04 PM, Quentin Bourgeois wrote: > >> Which manpage/wiki? > > I was thinking of the wiki page that give instruction with Python > > PKGBUILD[0]. > > > > [0] https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Python_PKGBUILD > > Check

Re: [aur-general] [REVIEW REQUEST] python-viivakoodi

On 12/02/2016 08:04 PM, Quentin Bourgeois wrote: >> Which manpage/wiki? > I was thinking of the wiki page that give instruction with Python > PKGBUILD[0]. > > [0] https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Python_PKGBUILD Check that Wiki page again, I added a section on setuptools. Suggestions are

Re: [aur-general] [REVIEW REQUEST] python-viivakoodi

On 12/02/2016 08:04 PM, Quentin Bourgeois wrote: > On 16-12-01 21:57:08, Eli Schwartz via aur-general wrote: >> On 12/01/2016 08:24 PM, Quentin Bourgeois wrote: >>> I finally managed to upload to AUR[0]. I had to made some >>> modification[1] in order to pass the different hooks on the server but

Re: [aur-general] [REVIEW REQUEST] python-viivakoodi

On 16-12-01 21:57:08, Eli Schwartz via aur-general wrote: > On 12/01/2016 08:24 PM, Quentin Bourgeois wrote: > > I finally managed to upload to AUR[0]. I had to made some > > modification[1] in order to pass the different hooks on the server but > > I think they would be ok. > > So I see...

Re: [aur-general] [REVIEW REQUEST] python-viivakoodi

On 12/01/2016 08:24 PM, Quentin Bourgeois wrote: > I finally managed to upload to AUR[0]. I had to made some > modification[1] in order to pass the different hooks on the server but > I think they would be ok. So I see... especially the "every commit must have a .SRCINFO". I had kind of sort of

Re: [aur-general] [REVIEW REQUEST] python-viivakoodi

On 16-11-29 23:59:45, Eli Schwartz via aur-general wrote: > On 11/29/2016 08:19 PM, Quentin Bourgeois wrote: > > Ouch, one new try :p > > Looks good to me. I'd say it is ready to upload to the AUR. > Hi, I finally managed to upload to AUR[0]. I had to made some modification[1] in order to pass

Re: [aur-general] [REVIEW REQUEST] python-viivakoodi

On 11/29/2016 08:19 PM, Quentin Bourgeois wrote: > Ouch, one new try :p Looks good to me. I'd say it is ready to upload to the AUR. > Definitely, but its quiet fun to be faced with such problems. It's also quite fun even when you're loud. ;) > If you may I propose the following summary in

Re: [aur-general] [REVIEW REQUEST] python-viivakoodi

On 16-11-28 23:02:02, Eli Schwartz via aur-general wrote: > On 11/28/2016 07:47 PM, Quentin Bourgeois wrote: > > On 16-11-27 19:41:06, Eli Schwartz via aur-general wrote: > >> On 11/27/2016 06:10 PM, Quentin Bourgeois wrote: > >>> With this, I come with a simpler PKGBUILD[0] in which I push > >>>

Re: [aur-general] [REVIEW REQUEST] python-viivakoodi

On 11/28/2016 07:47 PM, Quentin Bourgeois wrote: > On 16-11-27 19:41:06, Eli Schwartz via aur-general wrote: >> On 11/27/2016 06:10 PM, Quentin Bourgeois wrote: >>> With this, I come with a simpler PKGBUILD[0] in which I push >>> modifications you advised. I also removed some dependencies that are

Re: [aur-general] [REVIEW REQUEST] python-viivakoodi

On 16-11-27 19:41:06, Eli Schwartz via aur-general wrote: > On 11/27/2016 06:10 PM, Quentin Bourgeois wrote: > > With this, I come with a simpler PKGBUILD[0] in which I push > > modifications you advised. I also removed some dependencies that are > > used for code coverage and building

Re: [aur-general] [REVIEW REQUEST] python-viivakoodi

On 11/27/2016 06:10 PM, Quentin Bourgeois wrote: > With this, I come with a simpler PKGBUILD[0] in which I push > modifications you advised. I also removed some dependencies that are > used for code coverage and building documentation, which I do not > install for now. > > Did we get to something

Re: [aur-general] [REVIEW REQUEST] python-viivakoodi

On 16-11-27 11:10:51, Eli Schwartz via aur-general wrote: > On 11/27/2016 10:30 AM, Quentin Bourgeois wrote: > > You are right I have remove this, my first goals was to sign my > > PKGBUILD file I don't think its possible ? > > No, although the AUR is HTTPS. > > If people clone the package

Re: [aur-general] [REVIEW REQUEST] python-viivakoodi

On 11/27/2016 10:30 AM, Quentin Bourgeois wrote: > You are right I have remove this, my first goals was to sign my > PKGBUILD file I don't think its possible ? No, although the AUR is HTTPS. If people clone the package instead of downloading the snapshot (several AUR helpers can be configured to

Re: [aur-general] [REVIEW REQUEST] python-viivakoodi

On 16-11-26 19:27:37, Eli Schwartz via aur-general wrote: > On 11/26/2016 01:01 AM, Florian Bruhin wrote: > >> * Upstream does not provide any GPG signature of the tarballs nor > >> commit signature. I've chosen to provide a detached GPG signature > >> of the downloaded tarball with my GPG

Re: [aur-general] [REVIEW REQUEST] python-viivakoodi

On 11/26/2016 01:01 AM, Florian Bruhin wrote: >> * Upstream does not provide any GPG signature of the tarballs nor >> commit signature. I've chosen to provide a detached GPG signature >> of the downloaded tarball with my GPG key. For me, its better to >> have this link-ability between the

Re: [aur-general] [REVIEW REQUEST] python-viivakoodi

* Quentin Bourgeois [2016-11-26 03:03:02 +0100]: > * As it is stated into the project README[3] argparse is required > for python 2.6, 3.0 and 3.1. What is the good way to do this into > a PKGBUILD ? I opt to force argparse as dependencies so I am sure > that it