On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 3:11 PM, Lukas Fleischer <archli...@cryptocrack.de> wrote: > On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 at 15:51:48, Anton Larionov wrote: >> Hello, >> >> I was under the impression that .AURINFO was introduced to override some >> fields in PKGBUILD when they are written in format which can't be properly >> displayed by AUR (or maybe I've missed something). But why do you want to >> force it's usage for all packages? In most cases AURINFO will just >> duplicate same fields from PKGBUILD. > > The long-term plan is to use it for all AUR packages, improve the format > and finally make it an official feature of makepkg(8) (the file will > probably be called .SRCINFO then but we're far from there). See my other > reply to Sebastien for some reasons on why it should be used. >
So the official goal is to have it generated as part of makepkg -S? Because I see that as the only way the format will get popular: if it's nobody's problem. J. Leclanche >> >> Also I have some questions about it's format: >> >> 1) If package has different dependencies for 86_64 and 686, what should I >> put in depend array? > > Good question. This cannot be answered properly, though, since > dependencies actually are a property of the binary package and not a > property of the source package. Maybe we should loosen the format for > dependencies of source packages and allow optdep-like comments? > Something like: > > depends = foo > depends = bar > depends = foobar: x86_64 only > > Just an idea. Comments welcome. > >> >> 2) Which 'pkgname' will be unique - from PKGBUILD or AURINFO? E.g if I >> upload package with name 'foo' and overriden name 'bar' will someone >> be able to upload new package with name 'foo'? Or 'bar'? > > Only the information from .AURINFO will be used. You can already trick > the AUR into reading a completely different name from the PKGBUILD than > it actually produces (and that problem is unavoidable), so that isn't a > (new) issue. > >> >> -- >> >> Regards, >> Anton Larionov