On Thu, 25 Jan 2018 13:50:19 -0500,
Dave Reisner wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 01:31:45PM -0500, Luke Shumaker wrote:
> > From: Luke Shumaker
> >
> > https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/57193
> >
> > If the user mistakenly passes in some other (non-package, non-PKGBUILD)
> > file, instead of refu
On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 01:31:45PM -0500, Luke Shumaker wrote:
> From: Luke Shumaker
>
> https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/57193
>
> If the user mistakenly passes in some other (non-package, non-PKGBUILD)
> file, instead of refusing to process it (saying
> "Error: Cannot process ${filename}"), it
From: Luke Shumaker
https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/57193
If the user mistakenly passes in some other (non-package, non-PKGBUILD)
file, instead of refusing to process it (saying
"Error: Cannot process ${filename}"), it will now try to parse it as a
PKGBUILD, probably encounter and print at least
> But if we want to get fancy, we could:
>
> 1) add a dependency on python-magic and check for text/plain
> 2) read the file line by line to see if ^pkgname= exists anywhere.
Seems like a good idea. And maybe still process as PKGBUILD when file is named
just "PKGBUILD".
On 01/25/2018 10:24 AM, Luke Shumaker wrote:
>> But it would be better to just consider every non-archive file as a
>> PKGBUILD file.
>
> +1
As I said on the bugreport:
> Personally, I wonder why we bother checking the filename at all,
> rather just assuming that the non-tar files are PKGBUILDs
On Wed, 24 Jan 2018 17:17:52 -0500,
ash...@linuxcomp.ru wrote:
>
> > How is "startswith" any less arbitrary than "endswith"? Because of some
> > habit to move PKGBUILD to PKGBUILD.suffix?
> Yes, as I already told at https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/57193:
> I keep several PKGBUILD files in one dir
