On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 11:16 PM, Xavier <shiningxc@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 3:58 PM, Cedric Staniewski <cedric@gmx.ca> wrote:
I do not agree with your definition of "portable" here. All of makepkgs dependencies are available for (mostly?) every system pacman can run on, so it is already "portable". Adding fallbacks only may make it easier to install/run makepkg in a specific setup. A setup where you cannot install all of makepkg's dependencies with a reasonable effort seems rather exotic to me and does not justify such an inappropriate increase in complexity of makepkg in my opinion. Why do you not write bash wrappers which provide the functionality of bsdtar/openssl/... and add these to your path?
I often agree with Cedric.. this is just another occurence :)
:) Ok. Got it: makepkg should make all assumptions possible that it's working on a fat Linux... For the moment, I think that my best option is to write my own makepkg. Of course I'll write it in any other programming language than Bash... :) For example I think I'll try rc (Plan9 shell), because it seems the most sane shell I've ever seen... Thanks, Ciprian.