thanks for the review. I'm grabbing as it your suggestion for the package description .
2017-07-02 16:21 GMT+01:00 Eli Schwartz via aur-general < aur-general@archlinux.org>: > On 07/02/2017 09:48 AM, mickael foucaux via aur-general wrote: > > thanks. > > > > The package author and I made some updates after you comments. > > > > about checksums: > > - I changed it for 'SKIP' rule > > > > about version number: > > - version tag has been added to original repository > > - and the PKGBUILD grabs it > > > > about the name: > > - I added the '-git' suffix > > - I updated the group name as well > > > > about variables: > > - $srcdir and $pkgdir are now embed in quoted strings > > > > about licence: > > - it has been added to the source repository > > > > Is that good enough to fit AUR quality? > > Looks good to me. Note that now there are tags provided by upstream > (good job on that), you could, optionally, choose to upload a non-git > package that uses: > source=("gopro-linux-$pkgver.tar.gz::$url/archive/$pkgver.tar.gz") > which is the reproducible archive created on that repository's Releases > page. As it is, though, this package is certainly sufficient to provide > a *-git package. > > I'd also like to point to the pkgdesc... "Useful tool set for post > production" doesn't seem descriptive enough to me, I would probably use > something like "Tools for post production with GoPro cameras". Just from > looking at the PKGBUILD, I cannot tell what gopro is or why I might want > to use their tools. > This might not matter to people already looking for software that > relates to the gopro, but at least it could help people know when the > package is *not* for them. > > -- > Eli Schwartz > >