On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 10:16 PM, Dan McGee <dpmcgee@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 10:07 PM, Allan McRae <mcrae_allan@hotmail.com> wrote:
Karolina Lindqvist wrote:
fredagen den 2 maj 2008 skrev Xavier:
I don't think they have to coexist. I used -s a billion times (well, every single time makepkg complained about missing deps), and I didn't use -b once. And I would think I am not alone in that case.
I have used -b a million times. If you want to build a single package, with all dependencies, from source, you need it. Co-existence of -s and -b would make it much more useful. Actually, I used such a version when:
shakti:~$ find /server/srv/ftp/archi586/ -name '*-i586.pkg.tar.gz' | wc 2587 2587 173147 shakti:~$
I did not build all those packages by hand, but with the help of makepkg -b and makeworld. Both very useful, and both custom patched.
This is a good point that I hadn't even considered. I think that porting to other architectures in itself is a perfectly valid reason for keeping the -b flag.
I think it gives a valid reason for keeping the functionality that -b provides somewhere, but I'm not convinced that it has to be in makepkg.
Why couldn't anything dealing with building packages besides the one asked for be dealt with elsewhere?
I agree with Dan. It seems like this could be broken out, but it also seems like it is tied to ABS a bit. Technically, nothing says a PKGBUILD needs to be in a dir with the same name, but -b expects that.