[pacman-dev] FS#7982 - patch to makepkg to allow PKGBUILDs building more than one package
Hello Freaks, This patch is for building more than one package with makepkg. Please review and discuss this patch! -- eS.eF.
From: Silvio fricke <silvio@port1024.net> Signed-off-by: Silvio fricke <silvio@port1024.net> --- scripts/makepkg.sh.in | 58 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- 1 files changed, 57 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) diff --git a/scripts/makepkg.sh.in b/scripts/makepkg.sh.in index 5bdc5bc..3c0c6f7 100644 --- a/scripts/makepkg.sh.in +++ b/scripts/makepkg.sh.in @@ -675,6 +675,8 @@ run_build() { mv "$BUILDLOG" "$BUILDLOG.$i" fi + export BUILDLOG + build 2>&1 | tee "$BUILDLOG"; ret=${PIPESTATUS[0]} else build 2>&1 || ret=$? @@ -1389,7 +1391,57 @@ if [ "$INFAKEROOT" = "1" ]; then tidy_install fi - create_package + if [ "$splitinstall" != "" ] ; then + backup_o=$backup + conflicts_o=$conflicts + depends_o=$depends + groups_o=$groups + install_o=$install + license_o=$license + pkgdesc_o=$pkgdesc + pkgname_o=$pkgname + pkgver_o=$pkgver + provides_o=$provides + replaces_o=$replaces + url_o=$url + create_package + for it in "${splitinstall[@]}" ; do + if [ -d "$pkgdir" ]; then + msg "Removing existing pkg/ directory..." + rm -rf "$pkgdir" + fi + mkdir -p "$pkgdir" + msg "Building split package using function: $it" + + if [ "$LOGGING" = "1" ]; then + [ "x$BUILDLOG" == "x" ] && BUILDLOG="${startdir}/${pkgname}-${pkgver}-${pkgrel}-${CARCH}.log" + echo >> "$BUILDLOG" + echo >> "$BUILDLOG" + echo "--- Logging for $it ------------" >> "$BUILDLOG" + + $it 2>&1 | tee -a "$BUILDLOG" + else + $it 2>&1 + fi + + create_package + [ "$backup_o" != "" ] && backup=$backup_o || unset backup + [ "$conflicts_o" != "" ] && conflicts=$conflicts_o || unset conflicts + [ "$depends_o" != "" ] && depends=$depends_o || unset depends + [ "$groups_o" != "" ] && groups=$groups_o || unset groups + [ "$install_o" != "" ] && install=$install_o || unset install + [ "$license_o" != "" ] && license=$license_o || unset license + [ "$pkgdesc_o" != "" ] && pkgdesc=$pkgdesc_o || unset pkgdesc + [ "$pkgname_o" != "" ] && pkgname=$pkgname_o || unset pkgname + [ "$pkgver_o" != "" ] && pkgver=$pkgver_o || unset pkgver + [ "$provides_o" != "" ] && provides=$provides_o || unset provides + [ "$replaces_o" != "" ] && replaces=$replaces_o || unset replaces + [ "$url_o" != "" ] && url=$url_o || unset url + done + msg "All split packages built!" + else + create_package + fi msg "$(gettext "Leaving fakeroot environment.")" exit 0 # $E_OK @@ -1459,6 +1511,10 @@ if [ "$NOEXTRACT" = "1" -o "$REPKG" = "1" ]; then error "$(gettext "The source directory is empty, there is nothing to build!")" plain "$(gettext "Aborting...")" exit 1 + elif [ "$splitinstall" != "" ]; then + error "$(gettext "Repacking with splittet Packages are not supported")" + plain "$(gettext "Aborting...")" + exit 1 elif [ "$REPKG" = "1" -a \( ! -d "$pkgdir" -o "$(ls "$pkgdir" 2>/dev/null)" = "" \) ]; then error "$(gettext "The package directory is empty, there is nothing to repackage!")" plain "$(gettext "Aborting...")" -- 1.5.5.3
silvio@port1024.net wrote:
From: Silvio fricke<silvio@port1024.net>
Signed-off-by: Silvio fricke<silvio@port1024.net> --- scripts/makepkg.sh.in | 58 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- 1 files changed, 57 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
I have only minor "appearance" issues to address here, I don't know what to think about the patch itself. Only that it does not seem too big and mostly concentrated in one place, which is good. So first, isn't the correct term "splitted"? It seems that you use both "split" and "splittet" which would then be incorrect. Also you should read this : http://archlinux.org/pacman/submitting-patches.html Especially this part : << Describe your patch. Before the actual diff begins, it helps if you describe the changes in the patch. This allows others to see what you intended so as to compare it to what was actually done, and allows better feedback. If you use git-format-patch to create your patch, then your commit message will be shown above the patch by default.
Also it is rather strange that there is no space between your name and mail address. Did you do something like the above : git repo-config user.name "Your Name" git repo-config user.email "me@example.com"
diff --git a/scripts/makepkg.sh.in b/scripts/makepkg.sh.in index 5bdc5bc..3c0c6f7 100644 --- a/scripts/makepkg.sh.in +++ b/scripts/makepkg.sh.in @@ -675,6 +675,8 @@ run_build() { mv "$BUILDLOG" "$BUILDLOG.$i" fi
+ export BUILDLOG + build 2>&1 | tee "$BUILDLOG"; ret=${PIPESTATUS[0]} else build 2>&1 || ret=$? @@ -1389,7 +1391,57 @@ if [ "$INFAKEROOT" = "1" ]; then tidy_install fi
- create_package + if [ "$splitinstall" != "" ] ; then + backup_o=$backup + conflicts_o=$conflicts + depends_o=$depends + groups_o=$groups + install_o=$install + license_o=$license + pkgdesc_o=$pkgdesc + pkgname_o=$pkgname + pkgver_o=$pkgver + provides_o=$provides + replaces_o=$replaces + url_o=$url + create_package + for it in "${splitinstall[@]}" ; do + if [ -d "$pkgdir" ]; then + msg "Removing existing pkg/ directory..." + rm -rf "$pkgdir" + fi + mkdir -p "$pkgdir" + msg "Building split package using function: $it" +
splitted?
+ if [ "$LOGGING" = "1" ]; then + [ "x$BUILDLOG" == "x" ]&& BUILDLOG="${startdir}/${pkgname}-${pkgver}-${pkgrel}-${CARCH}.log" + echo>> "$BUILDLOG" + echo>> "$BUILDLOG" + echo "--- Logging for $it ------------">> "$BUILDLOG" +
What about wraiden's suggestion in the bug comments : << You could change the comment appending into a single line of the following form which would be cleaner in my opinion. echo -e "\n\n--- Logging for $it ------------" >> "$BUILDLOG"
On Sat, Jun 14, 2008 at 09:06:23PM +0200, Xavier <shiningxc@gmail.com> wrote:
So first, isn't the correct term "splitted"? It seems that you use both "split" and "splittet" which would then be incorrect.
i'm not native, but: split, split, split. splitted is not an English term at all.
Miklos Vajna wrote:
On Sat, Jun 14, 2008 at 09:06:23PM +0200, Xavier<shiningxc@gmail.com> wrote:
So first, isn't the correct term "splitted"? It seems that you use both "split" and "splittet" which would then be incorrect.
i'm not native, but: split, split, split. splitted is not an English term at all.
To be honest I wasn't sure at all between split and splitted :) Only that splittet was wrong but probably a typo for splitted. The fact that google returned one million results for splitted didn't help me though, but it indeed seems that split is the correct one.
Hello,
Also it is rather strange that there is no space between your name and mail address. Did you do something like the above : git repo-config user.name "Your Name" git repo-config user.email "me@example.com"
silvio@port1024.net wrote:
From: Silvio fricke<silvio@port1024.net>
Very strange, because [1] show me that I have spaces between my name and address.
I have only minor "appearance" issues to address here, I don't know what to think about the patch itself. Only that it does not seem too big and mostly concentrated in one place, which is good.
Ok, fine!
So first, isn't the correct term "splitted"? It seems that you use both "split" and "splittet" which would then be incorrect.
Hmm, english is not my native language and I need help in language things. But I have the suggestions from [2] used.
Also you should read this : http://archlinux.org/pacman/submitting-patches.html Especially this part : << Describe your patch.
Before the actual diff begins, it helps if you describe the changes in the patch. This allows others to see what you intended so as to compare it to what was actually done, and allows better feedback. If you use git-format-patch to create your patch, then your commit message will be shown above the patch by default.
Right you are! The next version of this patch has a more descriptive description.
+ if [ "$LOGGING" = "1" ]; then + [ "x$BUILDLOG" == "x" ]&& BUILDLOG="${startdir}/${pkgname}-${pkgver}-${pkgrel}-${CARCH}.log" + echo>> "$BUILDLOG" + echo>> "$BUILDLOG" + echo "--- Logging for $it ------------">> "$BUILDLOG" +
What about wraiden's suggestion in the bug comments : << You could change the comment appending into a single line of the following form which would be cleaner in my opinion.
echo -e "\n\n--- Logging for $it ------------" >> "$BUILDLOG"
I have it beautified! [1] http://archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/2008-June/012133.html [2] http://archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/2008-June/012147.html Bye eS.eF. -- -- S. Fricke ---------------------------------------- silvio@port1024.net -- Diplom-Informatiker (FH) Linux-Entwicklung JABBER: silvio@conversation.port1024.net ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
silvio@port1024.net wrote:
<snip>
+ backup_o=$backup + conflicts_o=$conflicts + depends_o=$depends + groups_o=$groups + install_o=$install + license_o=$license + pkgdesc_o=$pkgdesc + pkgname_o=$pkgname + pkgver_o=$pkgver + provides_o=$provides + replaces_o=$replaces + url_o=$url <snip> + [ "$backup_o" != "" ] && backup=$backup_o || unset backup + [ "$conflicts_o" != "" ] && conflicts=$conflicts_o || unset conflicts + [ "$depends_o" != "" ] && depends=$depends_o || unset depends + [ "$groups_o" != "" ] && groups=$groups_o || unset groups + [ "$install_o" != "" ] && install=$install_o || unset install + [ "$license_o" != "" ] && license=$license_o || unset license + [ "$pkgdesc_o" != "" ] && pkgdesc=$pkgdesc_o || unset pkgdesc + [ "$pkgname_o" != "" ] && pkgname=$pkgname_o || unset pkgname + [ "$pkgver_o" != "" ] && pkgver=$pkgver_o || unset pkgver + [ "$provides_o" != "" ] && provides=$provides_o || unset provides + [ "$replaces_o" != "" ] && replaces=$replaces_o || unset replaces + [ "$url_o" != "" ] && url=$url_o || unset url <snip>
I think it would be cleaner to get these in a loop and in the same order as in PKGBUILD.proto. As I said in another email about splitting packages, I really don't like the whole deleting the pkgdir at the end of packaging each split package. However, in general I think this approach to splitting packages is OK. Allan
On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 19:42:49 +1000 Allan McRae <mcrae_allan@hotmail.com> wrote:
I think it would be cleaner to get these in a loop and in the same order as in PKGBUILD.proto.
As I said in another email about splitting packages, I really don't like the whole deleting the pkgdir at the end of packaging each split package. However, in general I think this approach to splitting packages is OK.
Yeah I'd rather not see pkgdir deleted either. It eliminates the possibility of just using --repackage to fix some minor mistakes.
participants (6)
-
Allan McRae
-
Loui
-
Miklos Vajna
-
Silvio Fricke
-
silvio＠port1024.net
-
Xavier