@taivlam for the mpr PKGBUILD

[pirate486743186]

@taivlam
comment notification there doesn't work and your email is a no reply github email address.

I made an improved version of the PKGBUILD, it's renamed, it's a simple pass through for the upstream deb package, it uses sha256 like upstream. I haven't publish it yet.
PKGBUILD.txt

For those asking. Indeed, this PKGBUILD doesn't really build a package, it's just a convenience.

[taivlam]

Hi @pirate486743186,

1. Just to be clear, the current PKGBUILD is working, correct? I basically inherited the MPR package after the package hadn't been updated for a while (as in, simply updated the version number to a PKGBUILD that's otherwise working).
2. Right now, I'm not sure what's happening with the MPR, as I receive a "502 Bad Gateway" error when I try to log onto mpr.makedeb.org. A message from the MPR channel on the makedeb Matrix channel indicates there were also issues with the APT repo starting at some point yesterday.
   • So, I can't currently log into the MPR to fix this right now &/or check my changes after pushing the changes.
   • Maybe that explains why I hadn't gotten any MPR comment notifications?
3. If you want, I could make the changes once the MPR is back online and note you as a contributor, once I get the chance to make the changes.
4. When you reference "upstream", do you mean the use of SHA256 sums used in the AUR electronmail-bin package maintained by ElectronMail's developer?
   • I think, unless if somehow ElectronMail was maintained upstream by Debian/Ubuntu &/or a third-party APT repo was made (which would be a miracle pragmatically) and using SHA256 sums is more customary, I would like to keep using BLAKE2 sums.
   • If performance is really an issue, I'd switch to SHA256.
5. I have a place where I keep track of PKGBUILD changes on GitHub for the MPR's electronmail-bin, and anyone can make PR's/create new issues in my AUR/MPR repo.
6. I can change the e-mail I use for MPR maintenance contact to a SimpleLogin alias, if that would be a line of communication that is better suited to have the option to reply.
   • However, I would like to keep most communications of critical proposed changes (not related to security, such as this) in the public - and currently I don't have anything like a public mailing list for MPR packages I maintain (though that's also probably not completely necessary, either) given the precedent set by the relatively very recent XZ Utils backdoor. Of course, I don't realistically expect any risk of that caliber for this MPR PKGBUILD (hopefully).

Since the MPR is temporarily down, I'll use this time to try to understand your proposed changes, as I'm relatively new to maintaining MPR packages.

[pirate486743186]

closing this here, continuation at your github corner.