On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 6:17 AM, Jerome Leclanche <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 3:11 PM, Lukas Fleischer > <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 at 15:51:48, Anton Larionov wrote: > >> Hello, > >> > >> I was under the impression that .AURINFO was introduced to override some > >> fields in PKGBUILD when they are written in format which can't be > properly > >> displayed by AUR (or maybe I've missed something). But why do you want > to > >> force it's usage for all packages? In most cases AURINFO will just > >> duplicate same fields from PKGBUILD. > > > > The long-term plan is to use it for all AUR packages, improve the format > > and finally make it an official feature of makepkg(8) (the file will > > probably be called .SRCINFO then but we're far from there). See my other > > reply to Sebastien for some reasons on why it should be used. > > > > So the official goal is to have it generated as part of makepkg -S? > Because I see that as the only way the format will get popular: if > it's nobody's problem. > > J. Leclanche > > >> > >> Also I have some questions about it's format: > >> > >> 1) If package has different dependencies for 86_64 and 686, what should > I > >> put in depend array? > > > > Good question. This cannot be answered properly, though, since > > dependencies actually are a property of the binary package and not a > > property of the source package. Maybe we should loosen the format for > > dependencies of source packages and allow optdep-like comments? > > Something like: > > > > depends = foo > > depends = bar > > depends = foobar: x86_64 only > > > > Just an idea. Comments welcome. > > > >> > >> 2) Which 'pkgname' will be unique - from PKGBUILD or AURINFO? E.g if I > >> upload package with name 'foo' and overriden name 'bar' will someone > >> be able to upload new package with name 'foo'? Or 'bar'? > > > > Only the information from .AURINFO will be used. You can already trick > > the AUR into reading a completely different name from the PKGBUILD than > > it actually produces (and that problem is unavoidable), so that isn't a > > (new) issue. > > > >> > >> -- > >> > >> Regards, > >> Anton Larionov > It might also be a good idea to write out what fields are available and their purpose on the wiki similar to the PKGBUILD page ( https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/PKGBUILD) and perhaps link to it from the AUR user guidelines page? It will be forgotten by most packagers if the only information about it is a commit message and a mailing list thread. Regards, Justin Dray E: [email protected] M: 0433348284
