Arch Linux

hpmachining

Member

From: Michigan

Registered: 2016-11-23

Posts: 40

Website

Review request: lwtools - 6809 & 6309 cross-development tools

I am working on creating packages for some tools to use for retro computing development for the old Tandy Color Computer. Here is a link to the web page for this particular package.
LWTOOLS
Please review my PKGBUILD. I am new to this, so any and all constructive criticism is welcome. There are a couple things in particular that I am unsure about.

1. Is this the correct way to handle a symlink to /bin/true?

2. namcap complains about bash dependency, but scripts use sh. Should I just ignore this?

# Maintainer: Paul Hentschel <paul at hpminc dot com>

pkgname=lwtools
pkgver=4.15
pkgrel=1
pkgdesc="A set of cross-development tools for the Motorola 6809 and Hitachi 6309 microprocessors."
arch=('x86_64')
url="http://lwtools.projects.l-w.ca/releases/$pkgname"
license=('GPL3')
groups=('os9-dev')
source=("$url/$pkgname-$pkgver.tar.gz")
md5sums=("2f13dd2e3908ca1fe20798bd708d8ec3")

build() {
  cd "$pkgname-$pkgver"
  make
}

check() {
  cd "$pkgname-$pkgver"
  make -k test
}

package() {
  cd "$pkgname-$pkgver"
  make DESTDIR="$pkgdir/" install

  # Install scripts and create symbolic links
  install -Dm755 -t "$pkgdir/usr/lib/$pkgname" extra/ar extra/as extra/ld
  ln -s "/usr/lib/$pkgname/ar" "$pkgdir/usr/bin/m6809-unknown-ar"
  ln -s "/usr/lib/$pkgname/as" "$pkgdir/usr/bin/m6809-unknown-as"
  ln -s "/usr/lib/$pkgname/ld" "$pkgdir/usr/bin/m6809-unknown-ld"
  ln -s /bin/true "$pkgdir/usr/bin/m6809-unknown-ranlib"

  # Install documentation
  install -Dm644 -t "$pkgdir/usr/share/doc/$pkgname" docs/manual/manual.{html,pdf}
}

# vim:set ts=2 sw=2 et:

Lone_Wolf

Member

From: Netherlands, Europe

Registered: 2005-10-04

Posts: 11,919

Re: Review request: lwtools - 6809 & 6309 cross-development tools

url="http://lwtools.projects.l-w.ca/releases/$pkgname"

that page shows the content of a folder, not very useful for people wanting to know more about the application.

http://lwtools.projects.l-w.ca/   looks like it would be a better choice.

- groups are not very useful for aur packages, are there other packages that use this group ?

---

Disliking systemd intensely, but not satisfied with alternatives so focusing on taming systemd.

(A works at time B)  && (time C > time B ) ≠  (A works at time C)

eschwartz

Fellow

Registered: 2014-08-08

Posts: 4,097

Re: Review request: lwtools - 6809 & 6309 cross-development tools

Bash is guaranteed to exist on any arch system, we don't support installations without it and it would be difficult to do so anyway as bash is not only in the base group but also required for numerous other base packages, like systemd, pacman, mkinitcpio, etc.

Obviously don't trust me *too* far, since if I had my way clearly we wouldn't have so many packages which depend on bash anyway... but I would certainly go so far as to say that there is a significant school of thought which says not to list bash as a dependency.

Or sh, since that's also required by POSIX. I don't think any Unix operating system will ever *not* have sh. It's true that Arch does not exactly consider LSB compliance as a goal, but lacking /bin/sh is a pretty significant deviation which is not at all reasonable to ever be seen...

---

Managing AUR repos The Right Way -- aurpublish (now a standalone tool)

hpmachining

Member

From: Michigan

Registered: 2016-11-23

Posts: 40

Website

Re: Review request: lwtools - 6809 & 6309 cross-development tools

Thank you for the feedback.

that page shows the content of a folder, not very useful for people wanting to know more about the application.
http://lwtools.projects.l-w.ca/   looks like it would be a better choice.

Oops! I see now. For some reason I had it in my head that $url was just used for the source files base. This makes much more sense.

- groups are not very useful for aur packages, are there other packages that use this group ?

There are at least 3 other packages I am working on. I put it in there for myself as a quick way of seeing which packages I have installed.

... but I would certainly go so far as to say that there is a significant school of thought which says not to list bash as a dependency.

That is my thought, as well, but since this is new to me and namcap complained I thought I should ask.