On 08/23/2016 10:57 AM, Doug Newgard wrote:
You call multiple PKGBUILDs abuse. I call copying the entire source and running two builds in a single PGKBUILD abuse. There is only one build function for a reason.
If you wish to make that claim, I am sure you can come up with a better reason than "there is only one build function for a reason". There is only one build function, because there is no reason to have multiple build functions. But there is a reason to have multiple package_* functions, because each package_* function defines the final contents of a split package. You already know this. ... FUD aside, the prevailing opinion by Developers, Trusted Users, and AUR contributors is against you. As Levente said, it is not very sensible to maintain and bump pkgvers for multiple PKGBUILDs, then download and build them all separately one by one. As a maintainer, it is a waste of effort, and as someone building both packages, it is a waste of effort.
PKGBUILDs are based around 1 build, not one source.
Says who? I'll say that PKGBUILDs are based around "one logically contiguous thing to desire to create"... Anyway, maybe we should build each component of a split PKGBUILD separately, as long as their Makefile defines separate sub-targets (which don't depend on each other). There are more than a couple of those... I think it is a problem to be overly-pedantic about what should define a PKGBUILD, rather than simply going with whatever, practically speaking, is advantageous. -- Eli Schwartz