Xyne wrote: > Allan McRae wrote: > > > > Since when it is a good packaging quality to upload packages which > > > can't be installed? > > > > They can be installed. Or do you mean can not be installed by an AUR > > helper? In which case you are still wrong due to the extra dependency line. > > I think this point should be stressed. Yaourt and other AUR helpers do not > determine the validity of a PKGBUILD. If you can download the tarball from the > AUR and build the package with makepkg, then the PKGBUILD is *valid* as far as > the AUR is concerned. > > Having said that, I disagree that the criteria for a *good* PKGBUILD is only > that it build. PKGBUILDs should try to conform to certain patterns and not > exploit the fact that they are written in Bash (unless absolutely necessary, > and even then only reluctantly). All metapackaging tools would have been much > easier to write if PKGBUILDs were perfectly parsable without arbitrary code > execution. The choice of Bash was myopic and lazy in my opinion, and something > that should be reversed as far as possible, not glorified. >
Hmmm, I should have finished reading all of the threads before replying. This would have been more appropriate elsewhere. Sorry.