On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 4:57 AM, Wieland Hoffmann <themi...@googlemail.com> wrote: > Hallo, Dan McGee: >> On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 2:36 AM, Wieland Hoffmann >> <themi...@googlemail.com> wrote: >> >> First, thanks for giving this a try. >> >> Commit descriptions are nice to have in permanent history, but all >> that stuff you wrote in the cover letter won't show up. Can you >> instead include some of that right here in the patch in commit >> message-style writing? >> >> > --- >> > scripts/makepkg.sh.in | 52 >> > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- >> > 1 files changed, 50 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> > >> > diff --git a/scripts/makepkg.sh.in b/scripts/makepkg.sh.in >> > index 78cd4cf..cc4f152 100644 >> > --- a/scripts/makepkg.sh.in >> > +++ b/scripts/makepkg.sh.in >> > +check_pgpsigs() { >> > + (( ! ${#source[@]} )) && return 0 >> > + (( ! ${#pgpsigs[@]})) && return 0 >> > + >> > + if ! type -p gpg >/dev/null; then >> > + error "$(gettext "Cannot find the gpg binary! Is gnupg >> > installed?")" >> > + exit 1 # $E_MISSING_PROGRAM >> > + fi >> Please see the check_software patch >> (http://projects.archlinux.org/pacman.git/commit/?id=7468956236), this >> will need to be updated to work that way instead of how we used to do >> it. > > Is it better to add a separate check or should I extend the existing one > and its error message?
Probably just add a new block- checking it twice isn't that big of deal, and that way the error message can say "required for verifying source files" or whatever. -Dan