On Tuesday, June 12, 2012 at 8:15 AM, Allan McRae wrote:
Well then... use rpm. :) Yeah, I have used rpm quite a bit and I do miss some of its functionality. But I also like pacman for being lightweight and fast, with few run-time dependencies (excluding those that makepkg requires). I also like that it manages synchronization with a remote repository itself, instead of requiring another tool or suite of tools in addition (like yum, etc). So even though some of the design of pacman feels unnatural to me after having used rpm, I'm determined to give it a fair chance for the above reasons. Or more constructively, that is not the design of package splitting in pacman. It was primarily designed for packages that have multiple install targets in their makefiles and so you run "make install-foo" "make install-bar" etc.
OK, thanks. I figured that perhaps I was reaching in terms of design intentions.
But saying that, I have had this in my ideas file for quite some time: - Implementing more generic splitting approach for things like the headers splitting: You do a "make install" in the package() function and each package_foo() subpackage function has an array that holds a list of files (including wildcards) to move from the temporary directory into the sub-package. Warnings are printed for any file that is left over.
Yes, something like this would suit me quite well.
So if you really need that and implement it, I would be amenable to including it.
Great! I'll look into it. Thanks, JH