On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 8:19 PM, Loui Chang <louipc.ist@gmail.com> wrote:
Yes I am recommending that it be -moved- from makepkg, but how does that mean I need to go away? I never said that it is unneccessary. I just believe the auxiliary functions should be moved into other scripts.
I agree. makepkg is too big. It needs to be librarized in every aspect, not just per package handling. It should look like this layout: http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/ports/infrastructure/ If anyone would like to find an example in shell, simply install laptop-mode-tools, pm-utils or netcfg. Their apps are layed out in a sane hierarchy that's easy to modify and maintain. When I wanted to change the collation of packages, just by looking at the layout of alpm I could spot where are packages sorted. With makepkg no one has that luxury; it's one big script and it's messy to thread about. Other benefits include: * Since it'd be modularized, wrappers don't have to run the executable. They just source what they need. This isolates bugs like any good library would. * I don't have to write a friggen blog on the commit message. "Modified: core/auth strip/libs" would set the context of my changes, like in any sane project. Andres P