Eli Schwartz via aur-general <aur-general@archlinux.org> schrieb am Di., 16. Aug. 2016, 15:10:
> On 08/16/2016 06:54 AM, Patrick Eigensatz via aur-general wrote: > > I usually do run my shellscripts via ./ too, but when I experimented with > > makepkg I experienced some errors and I wasn't sure if makepkg would know > > how to interpret ./ so I wrote sh. I'll change this back soon. > > What kind of errors? Since the two formats should be exactly the same > unless the shellscript is not marked as executable... > This may just be a style nit, but mysterious errors aren't a style nit > -- they are something you should understand, rather than simply avoid. > > > Oh, another "good practice" suggestion: > > For the source array, use > source=("$pkgname-$pkgver.tar.gz::$url/archive/v$pkgver.tar.gz") > > This will rename the source tarball so it won't clash with other > downloads, since GitHub uses the same style of pkgver-based url > locations (with content-disposition, which makepkg doesn't respect, to > rename it properly). > > Why does this matter? Only because if someone uses a common $SRCDEST > (see `man makepkg.conf`) they might have a different file with the same > name which makepkg will assume is the file it wants (then fail the > integrity check). > > -- > Eli Schwartz > No, the errors I experienced were all PKGBUILD syntax related mistakes; also I didn't know I could use full bash syntax in the PKGSRC file this is why I "extended" ./ to sh to eliminate possible error causes I would not have been aware of. Yes, indeed the github downloads all look the same. I'll implement your suggestion soon, thank you! -- Patrick >