FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > ArchLinux > ArchLinux User Repository

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 11-21-2009, 04:09 PM
Andrea Scarpino
 
Default Application as a Trusted User

On 21/11/2009, Thorsten Töpper <atsutane@freethoughts.de> wrote:
> About my packages:
> I maintain 10 packages in AUR[1], whereby I also participate in the
> development of the i3 window manager to whom's project family 6 of
> these packages belong(3 projects, each as stable and git package), the
> other four are the git package of the newsbeuter feedreader and the
> cococpp package which is a build dependency for the previously named,
> structorizer which is a Java program to design structograms (or Nassi-
> Schneiderman diagrams) and a mecurial package for objfw which is a
> portable framework for the Objective C language, not one of them was
> adopted. If you want to see their history, I also keep them in a git
> repository at github.com[2].
Hi Thorsten,
you don't need to include LICENSE file for packages that use GPL or
common licenses (e.g. cococp), and you can omit 'custom:' when a
package is licensed under BSD or MIT.
Why do you use package() function when the package isn't a splitted package?
Also, you don't need to put Contributor/Maintainer tag twice (e.g.
objfw-hg) and you can omit empty arrays from PKGBUILD (e.g.
newsbeuter-git).
Ah, another little thing: don't include $pkgname in description (e.g.
structorizer).

Regards

--
Andrea `bash` Scarpino
Arch Linux Developer
 
Old 11-21-2009, 04:24 PM
Gerardo Exequiel Pozzi
 
Default Application as a Trusted User

Andrea Scarpino wrote:
> Why do you use package() function when the package isn't a splitted package?
>
>
Hello

Using both build() and package() is not necessary condition for use only
with splitted packages, its avoid to use the fakeroot on building
process that is not needed in 99% of packages.

Good luck!

--
Gerardo Exequiel Pozzi ( djgera )
http://www.djgera.com.ar
KeyID: 0x1B8C330D
Key fingerprint = 0CAA D5D4 CD85 4434 A219 76ED 39AB 221B 1B8C 330D
 
Old 11-21-2009, 04:27 PM
Andrea Scarpino
 
Default Application as a Trusted User

On 21/11/2009, Gerardo Exequiel Pozzi <vmlinuz386@yahoo.com.ar> wrote:
> Hello
>
> Using both build() and package() is not necessary condition for use only
> with splitted packages, its avoid to use the fakeroot on building
> process that is not needed in 99% of packages.
Nice, I didn't know that. Thanks Gerardo

--
Andrea `bash` Scarpino
Arch Linux Developer
 
Old 11-21-2009, 04:29 PM
 
Default Application as a Trusted User

On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 14:24:58 -0300
Gerardo Exequiel Pozzi <vmlinuz386@yahoo.com.ar> wrote:

> Andrea Scarpino wrote:
> > Why do you use package() function when the package isn't a splitted
> > package?
> >
> >
> Hello
>
> Using both build() and package() is not necessary condition for use
> only with splitted packages, its avoid to use the fakeroot on building
> process that is not needed in 99% of packages.
>
> Good luck!
>

Sorry, but I consider the use of fakeroot a good thing, it helps
to reveal errors while packaging/creating the PKGBUILD at least. Don't
know why it should be avoided.
 
Old 11-21-2009, 04:33 PM
Stefan Husmann
 
Default Application as a Trusted User

Andrea Scarpino wrote (omissions by me)




you don't need to include LICENSE file for packages that use GPL or
common licenses (e.g. cococp), and you can omit 'custom:' when a
package is licensed under BSD or MIT.


It was my advise to include "custom" for BSD and MIT licenses, so if this is an error,
it is mine.


But I think having a "custom" in the license array makes it more clear where to look
for the license file.


Regards Stefan
 
Old 11-21-2009, 04:37 PM
Stefan Husmann
 
Default Application as a Trusted User

hollunder@gmx.at schrieb:

On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 14:24:58 -0300
Gerardo Exequiel Pozzi <vmlinuz386@yahoo.com.ar> wrote:


Andrea Scarpino wrote:

Why do you use package() function when the package isn't a splitted
package?



Hello

Using both build() and package() is not necessary condition for use
only with splitted packages, its avoid to use the fakeroot on building
process that is not needed in 99% of packages.

Good luck!



Sorry, but I consider the use of fakeroot a good thing, it helps
to reveal errors while packaging/creating the PKGBUILD at least. Don't
know why it should be avoided.



The build process normally does not need root permissions at all. So it is
save to build als normal user and nessasary to install as "faked" root.


Regards Stefan
 
Old 11-21-2009, 04:37 PM
Andrea Scarpino
 
Default Application as a Trusted User

On 21/11/2009, Stefan Husmann <stefan-husmann@t-online.de> wrote:
> It was my advise to include "custom" for BSD and MIT licenses, so if this is
> an error,
> it is mine.
>
> But I think having a "custom" in the license array makes it more clear where
> to look
> for the license file.
from[1]:
"The BSD, MIT, zlib/png and Python licenses are special cases and
could not be included in the licenses package. For the sake of the
license array, it is treated as a common license (license=('BSD'),
license=('MIT'), license=('ZLIB') and license=('Python')) but
technically each one is a custom license because each one has its own
copyright line. Any packages licensed under these four should have its
own unique license stored in /usr/share/licenses/pkgname. Some
packages may not be covered by a single license. In these cases,
multiple entries may be made in the license array, e.g. license=('GPL'
'custom:name of license')."

[1] - http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Building_Packages_in_Arch_Linux

--
Andrea `bash` Scarpino
Arch Linux Developer
 
Old 11-21-2009, 04:51 PM
Thorsten Töpper
 
Default Application as a Trusted User

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA224

On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 18:09:27 +0100
Andrea Scarpino <andrea@archlinux.org> wrote:
> Hi Thorsten,
> you don't need to include LICENSE file for packages that use GPL or
> common licenses (e.g. cococp), and you can omit 'custom:' when a
> package is licensed under BSD or MIT.
> Why do you use package() function when the package isn't a splitted
> package? Also, you don't need to put Contributor/Maintainer tag twice
> (e.g. objfw-hg) and you can omit empty arrays from PKGBUILD (e.g.
> newsbeuter-git).
> Ah, another little thing: don't include $pkgname in description (e.g.
> structorizer).
>
> Regards
>

Hello Andrea,
when I packaged cococpp I stumbled upon this paragraph in the text:
> As an exception, it is allowed to write an extension of Coco/R that is
> used as a plugin in non-free software.
which I had not read in another GPL license file I read so far, so I
decided to include it to the package in order to avoid any legal
problems.

As namcap always throwed a unnecessary warning if only the Maintainer
tag was set, I decided to simply set both because I thought it wouldn't
disturb anyone and I had a warning less when I was proving my packages.

As Stefan already said, he told me to set a custom in front of the
license I will change that when it is clarified how it should be.

I'll upload a new structorizer package with a fixed description in the
next few minutes.

For the usage of both methods(build and package), I thought it's much
nicer to read for people who are new to Arch and read their first
PKGBUILDs and as the packages didn't need fakeroot to build I used it.

Regards
- --
Jabber: atsutane@freethoughts.de Blog: http://atsutane.freethoughts.de/
Key: 295AFBF4 FP: 39F8 80E5 0E49 A4D1 1341 E8F9 39E4 F17F 295A FBF4
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)

iFUEARELAAYFAksIKKUACgkQOeTxfyla+/SfOgDYh+41Vi97OFPPTO5VnxtVvpyl
A9psMOmq66wUAN4+2Aew9cW0c1foq6eWcbWo6BaJCrLtBrEcuU Xi
=JkFe
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
 
Old 11-21-2009, 05:13 PM
Xavier
 
Default Application as a Trusted User

On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 6:29 PM, <hollunder@gmx.at> wrote:
>
> Sorry, but I consider the use of fakeroot a good thing, it helps
> to reveal errors while packaging/creating the PKGBUILD at least. Don't
> know why it should be avoided.
>

Sorry, but you are wrong. Since when using fakeroot when not needed is
a good thing ?
How can it reveal errors ? Care to elaborate ? We are all very curious
 
Old 11-21-2009, 05:27 PM
 
Default Application as a Trusted User

On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 19:13:17 +0100
Xavier <shiningxc@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 6:29 PM, <hollunder@gmx.at> wrote:
> >
> > Sorry, but I consider the use of fakeroot a good thing, it helps
> > to reveal errors while packaging/creating the PKGBUILD at least.
> > Don't know why it should be avoided.
> >
>
> Sorry, but you are wrong. Since when using fakeroot when not needed is
> a good thing ?
> How can it reveal errors ? Care to elaborate ? We are all very
> curious

You know about DESTDIR and all that? Some apps don't support it, some
semm to support it and don't really. In those cases you get notified,
can patch makefiles or work around it some other way. I had a number
of these cases in my 50+ PKGBUILDs.

Might be that building as user would reveal these as well, I'm not
sure. I'm not sure about all possible consequences and everything that
could go wrong, but I doubt that a small compile speed gain, according
to another mail, is worth it.
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 07:07 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright ©2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org