On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 6:04 PM, Allan McRae <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> And if namcap has such checks, why not makepkg?
> makepkg makes packages, namcap checks packages. *The distinction seems
No, it doesn't seem clear.
You know as well as I do that makepkg has a great deal of logic pertaining to
checking packages that go farther than an arch check before stripping debug
It checks to see wether pkgver and the like have illegal characters, the same
with other fields.
With the exception of a package name starting with a '-' character, since that
check has to do with operands and calling makepkg with --pkg foo.
It's also very strange that you draw this destinction as black and white when
there's been patches posted in the last ~48 hours related to makepkg
'sanity' checks that have to do with
this very subject.
And without bringing those up; you agree with the arch check yet that's where
the whole namcap mention (and later, comparison) came in? Not making a
lot of sense.
>> It just gets very tedious to mantain a makepkg-ng on the side.
> Then you need to learn to use git better. *I maintained a patch set for at
> least six months in the last release cycle before they got accepted into
That's well besides the point.
Learning git better won't magically teach me how to sit down and sweettalk
people over the net. It seems ridiculous that I have to go out of my way
quoting man sudoers and other stupid stuff for things that I know that are
It'd be much more productive if, say, people would check what they're saying