This way we could also implement subpackages with a single PKGBUILD.
I really like this idea better. See, this is why we discuss things, heh.
I dunno if I like the naming though... maybe something that fits the scheme a bit better?
PKGBUILD -> METABUILD.foo ? Just suggesting here...
Also, we'd probably want to add some protection in there to verify that, if it has sub-packages, the PKGBUILD isn't attempted without the meta file... for instance, the pkgname=ndiswrapper${subname} could cause some issues if subname is undefined.
andyrtr brought up an interesting other point on #archlinux-pacman today. 17:29 < andyrtr> would allow building several i18n packages in one build process 17:30 < andyrtr> maintaining i18n packages is damn boring a lots of time consuming with my slow internet connection 17:31 < toofishes> so basically we need to explore the concept of one PKGBUILD not always equalling one package 17:32 < andyrtr> for now it could be really helpfull. maybe it would loose the priority when we could use pacbuild. 17:32 < andyrtr> but hey, even stupid rpm could handle that! 17:32 < toofishes> well i think it would be helpful anyway, for sake of maintence of PKGBUILDs. if one thing changes (download location), it makes sense to change it in 1 place and not 10 17:33 < toofishes> we just want to make sure we do it in a KISS way, and make it as generalized as possible 17:33 < andyrtr> yes, other options would be possible: stripping out headers, docs such stuff into seperate packages 17:34 < toofishes> ahh, i didn't even think about that, building docs at the same time. that would be pretty smart. So the short summary- all of those openoffice language packs could be built with one PKGBUILD/METABUILD whatever if we do this right. -Dan