In other words, rather than fix the packages to be safer and more logical, go ahead and let people write sloppy PKGBUILDs? For what it's worth, I think this is a bad idea. The changes needed to fix the packages are small, and this would reduce the ability of users to automate upgrading from ABS. On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 11:33 PM, Allan McRae <allan@archlinux.org> wrote:
On 23/09/15 00:20, Pierre Neidhardt wrote:
I might have missed something in the previous messages, but is there any rationale on this, beside debatable worthiness?
Many packages break when using this.
Some are because assumptions made on build() about the value of $pkgname which changes when --pkg was used. These should use $pkgbase anyway...
Also, there are quite a few split packages that rely on the first first split-package being packaged for the rest of the package functions to work. This will become more prevalent when a way to do a "make install" followed by moving files into different packages becomes available (i.e. rpm packaging style - I am working on this).
So... essentially, it is (debatably) broken and will become more broken in the future