so this is the same program as 'flashrom-stable'; but with a new name?
so 'flashrom-stable' should be deleted? and 'flashprog' should become the libre
replacement for 'flashrom' in the blacklist? - i forgot now why we want this -
i did not blacklist 'flashrom' - should it be?
ive a few comments about the PKGBUILD
> +# Maintainer (Parabola): Wael Karram <wael AT waelk.tech>
not "Maintainer (Parabola):", simply "Maintainer:"
> +# Parabola Changes and Rationale
> +# 1) Clarified license version (GPLv2 only).
> +# 2) Dropped unsupported architectures.
that is good - but you forgot to mention that you disabled GPIO support
> +license=('GPLv2')
that is not a correction - the values in the license array need to match a
directory name under /usr/share/licenses/common/ - if the license is GPL2-only,
then the value should be 'GPL2' - however, that is actually die to change -
arch has already done it - with the next 'licenses' package, these will all be
SPDX IDs
> +makedepends=('git' 'make')
make does not need to be in any PKGBUILD; because it is assumed to
be installed by 'base-devel'
> +source=(git+https://review.sourcearcade.org/flashprog.git?signed#tag=v${pkgver})
the name of this PKHBUILD should be 'flashprog-git' - the AUR maintainer is
not following the guidelines - as for parabola though, we prefer to avoid VCS
builds
it took me only seconds to find that the upstream publishes signed tarballs -
a signed tarball is much better than a VCS build - please remember to look for
one
from https://flashprog.org/wiki/Flashprog/v1.0.1:
> A tarball is available for download at
> https://flashprog.org/releases/flashprog-v1.0.1.tar.bz2 (GPG signature)
also, at the same time i noticed, that they made a new release four days before
you sent this - the latest version is v1.0.1
_______________________________________________
Dev mailing list
Dev@lists.parabola.nu
https://lists.parabola.nu/mailman/listinfo/dev
