Adding bloodhound

[Torxed]

No tests have been made, not sure what the normal test procedure is.
I currently have no machine to test this on since they're all running bloodhound instances currently.

Will update the PR once I get around to testing.

[Torxed]

This should cover #305 :)

[xorond]

some inline comments for your next PR, but i have to say that i'm pretty disappointed that you basically took the pkgbuild from blackarch.

[xorond]

... really?

this pkgbuild is basically copied with minor changes

[xorond]

doesn't fit out packaging guideline. if you're going to get $pkgver from git, please rename the pkg accordingly to bloodhound-git

[xorond]

#!/usr/bin/env bash

[xorond]

chmod 755 instead of chmod +x

[xorond]

'any' arch doesn't work here since it needs to be built differently for different arches. you need to explicitly write them

[Cthulu201]

Hi torxed, thanks for submitting. There are a few things that need changing. One of the big ones changing the maintainer and contributor lines:

# Maintainer: ArchStrike <team@archstrike.org>
# Contributor: ${your_name} <${email_address}>

We have no issues with contributions between various repos, we prefer to keep it repo focused. Also, our packaging infrastructures are different. Have you tried testing that PKGBUILD in a clean chroot?

makechrootpkg -c -r ${CHROOT}

Do you have any ARM devices that can also be used for testing? Thanks.

[Torxed]

Hi torxed, thanks for submitting. There are a few things that need changing. One of the big ones changing the maintainer and contributor lines:

# Maintainer: ArchStrike <team@archstrike.org>
# Contributor: ${your_name} <${email_address}>

We have no issues with contributions between various repos, we prefer to keep it repo focused. Also, our packaging infrastructures are different. Have you tried testing that PKGBUILD in a clean chroot?

makechrootpkg -c -r ${CHROOT}

Do you have any ARM devices that can also be used for testing? Thanks.

I see. Let me get back to you on those things.
Not sure what or why the different packaging infrastructure is for, i tend to like makepkg and have yet to see a reason for going from it. Perhaps there's some night time reading some where that you can point me to why this decision was made? or can I perhaps keep it as vanilla as possible or is it completely forbidden? :)

I'll test the stuff, been a busy week and will probably be a bit busy hence forth, but I'll do my best :)

[Cthulu201]

makepkg is good. However, if you already have a pkg installed locally it won't tell you that you need to add it to your PKGBUILD. Building in a clean chroot, with makechrootpkg, should. Our builders build in clean chroots to Arch standards. Some repos also have pkgs we don't to get their packages built.

[Torxed]

to your PK

Ah, you mean it does dependency-lookups? Not something you necessarily need for the PKGBUILD to pass? I thought you removed makepkg and strictly use your own.

[Cthulu201]

makepkg -s checks what you have locally and installs deps as needed. We use mkarchroot to create the clean chroot and use makechrootpkg to build - it checks database in chroot and not locally. If a dep is missing then we either add it to the PKGBUILD as needed, or we create a pkg for a supporting dep - main pkg won't build until all deps are available.

[xorond]

more info 0 1

[Cthulu201]

I apologize for dropping the ball and not following up. Where are we with this? I took a peek and don't see a change to the Maintainer and contributor lines - want to give proper credit.