On 08/13/2016 03:47 PM, Patrick Eigensatz via aur-general wrote: > Then I read I could ask here for suggestions and improvements. > Is there something I didn't do which is e.g. a good habit? Or did I > something that I shouldn't have done?
Including the feedback you have already received, it looks pretty good now. But I would note a couple additional things: gcc-libs is part of the base group, and gcc is part of base-devel. Neither should ever be listed as depends (or makedepends, respectively), since it is assumed all users have gcc-libs installed and gcc is a prerequisite to running makepkg. I don't usually see people running shellscripts using `sh $shellscript` -- it is usually `./$shellscript`. It really makes no difference (practical or otherwise) except for looking odd... As Florian Bruhnin said, md5sums is not needed, you only need one checksum validation. The tools for every validation method (or anything else built into makepkg itself) will always be required for makepkg via the base/base-devel or pacman dependencies. In addition to the most common build tools like gcc/make/patch/autotools/libtool. sha256sums is always superior to legacy md5sums so stick with that. If you want to further variableize your PKGBUILD, you can use $pkgname in the url as well, I usually do. (Sometimes this will allow a lot more copy-pasting of existing PKGBUILDs, the rest of the time it just highlights the relationship between the pkgname and the upstream url.) This really is just a style preference though. -- Eli Schwartz
