On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 8:33 AM, Heiko Baums <lists@baums-on-web.de> wrote:
Am Fri, 2 Mar 2012 07:45:34 +0800 schrieb Oon-Ee Ng <ngoonee.talk@gmail.com>:
Splitting off from the TU application thread that's becoming more of a discussion on the above:-
My (user) perspective - when did being able/not to install packages from a helper (for example yaourt) become a benchmark for deciding how 'correct' a PKGBUILD is?
It's not only the helper, but it's one point. And it was not only the split package but also those two depends arrays in some PKGBUILDs.
A correct PKGBUILD should in my opinion respect the official packaging standards. And since AUR doesn't support split packages it's just not officially supported.
As I understand it the reason the AUR doesn't support split packages is more along the lines of "hard to implement" and/or "noone has bothered to add it" rather than "the AUR shall not have split packages". If a workaround allows split packages to work fine without having to rewrite the AUR, that's a GOOD thing to me. Note: 'work' means with makepkg.
And why can't a package being built in a way that it can easily installed by those helpers?
Helpers are only helpers. Nothing wrong with using them, but they're:- a) not official b) not a suitable substitute for knowing how to download a tarball and run makepkg If a user can't do b) AUR helpers do them a dis-service, IMO. Better to learn what's going on behind the scenes. I've used yaourt and bauerbill before, and they DO make things easier, but if we ever reach the point that a large group of users only know how to use the AUR through helpers Arch would be a very different (and worse) place.