Hello Brett. I took some time to randomly sample your PKGBUILDs and give some feedback:
- ags:
- it appears that you use sed to change CFLAGS in the makefile
definition, although it appears that the Makefile itself lets you
overwrite them. I'd advice trying to use native tooling as
possible, and to try to get familiar with the toolchain of each
package as much as possible.
- The optdepends description on wine is a bit confusing in my
opinion.
- I marked the package as out-of-date, as there appears to be a new
version (3.1.4.15) as of almost two months ago.
- I noticed that you didn't add a LICENSE file for this package.
- hib-dlagent:
- I see that you backported a patch on this and ags. I was rather
surprised to see that neither patches were added to new
tags/releases. You could, however, cherry pick the commits rather
than depending on the github api (which can change) to compute the
diff for you. For this, you could use the git transport on
makepkg.
- I noticed that you didn't add a LICENSE file for this package.
- gam-git:
- I'm not sure if this would work when built in a chroot due to
those touch calls.
- After reviewing the package I doubt this doesn't need a build()
step. Otherwise I'd label this package a -bin. This is something
that we should take special consideration of, since we could be
unwittingly be introducing binaries that aren't hardened when
building.
(I could be wrong on this one, since it for some reason vendors
many well-known packages inside of it. Good job for not pulling it
those vendored deps :D)
- I'm confused as to why gam.py needs to be put inside
/usr/share/gam and add a .sh entrypoint for it in /usr/bin. The
file seems to have a shebang and be executable...
- I see that here you *also* are providing a patch. I also could
find that you submitted an issue upstream for said patch (but not
the patch itself)[1]. I like your initiative! Do try to keep the
number of backported patches to a minimum to keep things
manageable.
- I noticed that you didn't add a LICENSE file for this package.
I will probably send more feedback, but I also don't want to overwhelm
you with this and all the other reviews around.
Cheers!
-Santiago.
[1] https://github.com/jay0lee/GAM/issues/791
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
