I'd like to see if we can some up with a decent way to allow for us to use the same documentation base, as sedding this stuff on merge seems like a waste of time. The simplest solution is to just make them all .in files and set autoconf variables like: BUILD_SCRIPT_NAME = PKGBUILD PKG_EXT = pkg.tar.gz #already discussed in the TODO etc etc
Does this sound worthwhile? Are there other ideas? I'm trying to open up discussion here and look for any and all suggestions.
BTW, doesn't this problem with different man pages in different distros confirms my last post in "Problems with frugalware splitname changes" thread about usefulness of config schema proposed by CHristian Hamar? ;-) Config options like --with-distro=arch, --with-distro=frugalware can be used to apply changes to man pages too.
Hey so. That was my idea too. Using schemes not means difference imho. And not cause that it will be bad or unreadable or unmaintainable. In one of your mail Aaron, you said that you never say any program that uses #ifdef REDHAT or #ifdef DEBIAN or etc.. schema (you saw #ifdef SOLARIS, etc but that is not the same story) There are progs which uses that :) Just see gnome / network-manager or system-tools-backend. system-tools-backend works with some scheme releated thing. There are schemes for distributions. And when you compile then you specify that ./configure --with-distribution=foo Then schemas from foo will be used and all will be good, because in foo.scheme (or .in or schemes/foo.in) there is proper defines for values. At pacman we can define BUILD_SCRIPT_NAME, PKG_EXT, CACHEDIR, DB_EXT and many things which is actually hardcoded into alpm.h . And i think this will cause that pacman can be used well in new distributions, because it will be easy to customize stuffs for new distros with this scheme system. I'm not sure that we are talking the same, am i right that i see you agree with schema system that i suggested ? Regards Christian Hamar alias krix Hungary