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 Pacman Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 06-16-2008, 07:49 AM
"Marc - A. Dahlhaus"
 
Default FS#7982 - patch to makepkg to allow PKGBUILDs building more than one package

Hello List,

a few comments on the posted patch...

@@ -1389,7 +1391,57 @@ if [ "$INFAKEROOT" = "1" ]; then
tidy_install
fi

- create_package
+ if [ "$splitinstall" != "" ] ; then
+ backup_o=$backup
+ conflicts_o=$conflicts
+ depends_o=$depends
+ groups_o=$groups
+ install_o=$install
+ license_o=$license
+ pkgdesc_o=$pkgdesc
+ pkgname_o=$pkgname
+ pkgver_o=$pkgver
+ provides_o=$provides
+ replaces_o=$replaces
+ url_o=$url

This is the right place to do this in my opinion, that way you have the global defined defaults for every slpit-package.
To move this inside of the loop would kill the posibility to get the fuits from my next comment.

+ create_package

I think this is wrong from the view to build sub-packages out of one compiled tree.
build should be used to only build the sources and prepare everything which would be usefull for all subpackages.

That way we could add a new param to makepkg to bould only a subset of the splitpackages by overriding the contents of the defined var splitinstall.


+ for it in "${splitinstall[@]}" ; do
+ if [ -d "$pkgdir" ]; then
+ msg "Removing existing pkg/ directory..."
+ rm -rf "$pkgdir"
+ fi
+ mkdir -p "$pkgdir"

I like it that way and we can fix the issue spotted by *Allan McRae* (non working repackage param) if we take the way of my prevous comment and allow to rebuild only a subset of the splitpackages.
I think we should add the splitpackage-name to repackage as additional param to makepkg's command line and use that to override the splitinstall value in case we want repackage.

--8<--

thanks,

Marc


_______________________________________________
pacman-dev mailing list
pacman-dev@archlinux.org
http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/pacman-dev
 
Old 06-16-2008, 09:05 AM
Silvio Fricke
 
Default FS#7982 - patch to makepkg to allow PKGBUILDs building more than one package

Hello Friends,

> > I like it that way and we can fix the issue spotted by *Allan McRae* (non working repackage param) if we take the way of my prevous comment and allow to rebuild only a subset of the splitpackages.
> > I think we should add the splitpackage-name to repackage as additional param to makepkg's command line and use that to override the splitinstall value in case we want repackage.
> >
>
> That looks quite weird to me.

Me, too!

> I would prefer having makepkg keeps all split packages in different
> subdirectories, and have the repackage operation repackage all split
> packages.

At home, I have it implemented with pkg_$funcname-dirstructure. When
I'm at home I will send it to this list.

Bye,
eS.eF.

--
-- S. Fricke ---------------------------------------- silvio@port1024.net --
Diplom-Informatiker (FH) TEL: (+49)8330-911278
Linux-Entwicklung JABBER: silvio@conversation.port1024.net
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


_______________________________________________
pacman-dev mailing list
pacman-dev@archlinux.org
http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/pacman-dev
 
Old 06-16-2008, 02:35 PM
Allan McRae
 
Default FS#7982 - patch to makepkg to allow PKGBUILDs building more than one package

I have been thinking about this some more and my head is beginning to
hurt...
> + backup_o=$backup
> + conflicts_o=$conflicts
> + depends_o=$depends
> + groups_o=$groups
> + install_o=$install
> + license_o=$license
> + pkgdesc_o=$pkgdesc
> + pkgname_o=$pkgname
> + pkgver_o=$pkgver
> + provides_o=$provides
> + replaces_o=$replaces
> + url_o=$url
>

Why would we need to change license, pkgver and url? This is for
splitting packages that come in a single source file... Otherwise you
make two PKGBUILDs. Can anyone give me a possible reason for changing
these. I'm not sure about groups but there might be some reason to
change that. I can think of reasons to change the options array so that
should be included. Should we allow varying pkgrels between the split
packages?

I really think we need to take a big step back here. What we really
need is to have a prototype PKGBUILD for a split package that is
relatively agreed upon. As I said in other emails there are multiple
ways to do this and one needs to be chosen. Once the decisions have
been made about the approach to take, and a naming scheme for
functions/variables, then we can look at patches. At the moment the
patches seem without a defined goal (at least to me).

Allan



_______________________________________________
pacman-dev mailing list
pacman-dev@archlinux.org
http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/pacman-dev
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 11:30 PM.

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