I kind of agree with this and would rather have a prepare switch to turn it
on with no extract.
Most of the time I have a prepare, it is for patching the source, and if I
am not extracting, then the patching would fail because the source isn't in
the right place.
My $0.02
Daniel
On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 8:44 PM Evangelos Foutras
On 17/02/16 09:50, Allan McRae wrote:
On 17/02/16 17:11, Evangelos Foutras wrote:
This is partial revert of 8454daa7feef (makepkg: run pkgver() and prepare() with --noextract).
Reasoning for the reversion (copied from FS#43498):
Running prepare() when --noextract is used no longer allows running 'makepkg -o && makepkg -e' with any PKGBUILD that applies patches in prepare(). [1]
Sure there's --noprepare which restores the old behavior, but that's a lot of extra typing for what I believe is a much more common use of --noextract.
So you are taking this from a case where you can use makepkg --noextract with or without prepare() and making it so you can only use it without to avoid some typing...
When there is no reason to be doing that, then removing this "feature" is the correct approach. prepare() is there to modify the sources after extraction; otherwise we might as well move its body into build().
Quoting another of my comments on FS#43498:
===================================================================== I don't see the need for a --prepare switch to be used together with --noextract (I consider prepare() tightly coupled to source extraction); its usefulness would be minimal at best.
If someone really wants to call prepare() when not extracting sources (for some special testing/bisect scenario), they can call it from build(). =====================================================================
Running prepare() with --noextract makes no sense to me and, therefore, do not believe it needs to be a supported configuration. YAGNI seems to apply in this case. [1]