FS#8187 - Add support for package function in PKGBUILD

Attached to Project: Pacman
Opened by Allan McRae (Allan) - Monday, 01 October 2007, 03:53 GMT
Last edited by Dan McGee (toofishes) - Saturday, 17 January 2009, 17:07 GMT
Task Type Feature Request
Category makepkg
Status Closed
Assigned To Aaron Griffin (phrakture)
Dan McGee (toofishes)
Allan McRae (Allan)
Architecture All
Severity Low
Priority Normal
Reported Version 3.0.6
Due in Version 3.3.0
Due Date Undecided
Percent Complete 100%
Votes 1
Private No

Details

Summary and Info:
Add support for a package function to be used if present. Use of this function would tell makepkg that the package is being split based on the subdirectories in the pkg directory.

See fuller descriptions at:
http://archlinux.org/pipermail/arch/2007-September/015631.html
http://archlinux.org/pipermail/arch/2007-September/015645.html
This task depends upon

Closed by  Dan McGee (toofishes)
Saturday, 17 January 2009, 17:07 GMT
Reason for closing:  Implemented
Additional comments about closing:  See commit 3d49d88009341
Comment by Roman Kyrylych (Romashka) - Monday, 01 October 2007, 10:42 GMT Comment by Xavier (shining) - Tuesday, 10 June 2008, 12:09 GMT
Waoh, this is already so old!
I just had a quick look at the proposal and I have a question:
How do you handle the different variables for each subpackage (different pkgname, pkgver, desc, groups, etc)?
Have a look at  FS#7982  with the kdemod example :
http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/7982?getfile=1432
The idea of one subdirectory per subpackage looks interesting though.

About the handling of different configurations, it seems less nice and less useful.
Comment by Allan McRae (Allan) - Tuesday, 10 June 2008, 12:27 GMT
Yes, this is old.... it's one of my first bug reports! And it definitely has issues with pkgname, pkgver, etc, which need to be worked out.

The whole splitting packages in makepkg is something I was going to target for pacman 3.3. I think ideas from all three bug reports about this could be combined.
Comment by Xavier (shining) - Tuesday, 10 June 2008, 12:36 GMT
Ok, no problem :)
By the way, I looked at this because a new patch was submitted in  FS#7982  which looked much simpler than the previous ones, and I haven't really figured out why yet.

Loading...