In the last month I have created and tested [1] a patch for pacman-3.2.2 that allows for 3 different PKGBUILD functions: build() check() inst(). This allows for a new option in makepkg.conf called check which is expected to default to !check (and overridden for toolchain packages). build() and check() are never run in fakeroot, only inst() (with exception for !fakeroot or --asroot, of course) which conforms to the fakeroot recommendation. My attempt was to make the patch backwards compatible so that if any of the functions weren't present, it was not an error. However, I realized while writing this email that this means that a PKGBUILD with just build() would run completely in a non-fakeroot environment which needs re-thinking. Anyway, it's a rather small patch as seen below: $ grep ^- makepkg.patch | grep -v ^--- |wc -l 16 $ grep ^+ makepkg.patch | grep -v ^+++ |wc -l 33 The reason for this email, though, is that I subbed to this list to watch how things are done, learn protocol, etc. So I grabbed the git repo and started looking at how I was going to apply this patch since enough has changed to cause all but 1 hunk to fail. I am not familiar with git, preferring svn, but can read docs. Where I'm tripped up is realizing that head doesn't reflect what private branches might hold. One person (sorry, I forget who) mentioned having a branch with many makepkg changes in it which would cause me to have to hand apply these changes again. I have no interest in doing that, so I'm asking: does this feature seem like it would be worthwhile (read; would the patch be accepted)? If so, how do I access private branches so my branch doesn't conflict with them? [1] I am building a base system with the new PKGBUILD format and am about 3/4 of the way done with no known makepkg errors (running makepkg with sh -x for extra detail) -- Jeff My other computer is an abacus.