Hi Kevin,
Thanks for the feedback, I will edit and resubmit.
I submitted an rspamd patch as well to update to 2.2 and tried to amend the commit after I found some typos but it kept submitting the old patch with new subject.
Thanks,
Duncan
Any reason why these are prefixed with an '_'? In any case, this just
makes sure that they exist during building. You still need to add a
pre-install script to make sure they exist on the target system.
Please call default_unpack here as well, as it also includes some other
functionality that is missing now.
Another option is to specify the archive name when downloading in the
source variable:
```sh
source="$pkgname-$pkgver.tar.gz::https://www.dcc-servers.net/src/dcc/old/dcc-2.3.167.tar.Z"
```
Then the default behaviour should suffice.
abuild now has a function called `amove` that makes this easier. The
above 3 lines can be replaced with:
```sh
amove var/dcc/libexec/dccifd var/dcc/libexec/start-dccifd
```
Hello Duncan,
Welcome to the Alpine Linux community, and thank you for your
contribution. I have placed some feedback inline.
Besides that, aport uses a specific standard for commit messages:
1) A generally followed commit standard where you have a short commit
subject soft limitted to about 50 characters, followed by a blank line,
and then more details about the commit (focussing more on why than what.
See this [post][commit-message] for more information.
2) Commit messages for packages are prefixed with the repo and package
name like this: 'testing/dcc: '.
So the commit message for this patch would be:
```
testing/dcc: new aport
```
The fact that there are subpackages is not that interesting (most
packages will have subpackages).
I hope this is clear, otherwise, feel free to ask questions.
Kind regards, Kevin.
On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 09:46:54PM +0000, Duncan Bellamy wrote: