[aur-general] avoid usage of fakeroot: always use of build() and package() (Was: application as a TU)

[Lukáš Jirkovský]

2009/11/21 Gerardo Exequiel Pozzi <vmlinuz386 at yahoo.com.ar>:
> hollunder at gmx.at wrote:
>> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 14:24:58 -0300
>> Gerardo Exequiel Pozzi <vmlinuz386 at yahoo.com.ar> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Andrea Scarpino wrote:
>>>
>>>> Why do you use package() function when the package isn't a splitted
>>>> package?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Hello :)
>>>
>>> Using both build() and package() is not necessary condition for use
>>> only with splitted packages, its avoid to use the fakeroot on building
>>> process that is not needed in 99% of packages.
>>>
>>> Good luck!
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Sorry, but I consider the use of fakeroot a good thing, it helps
>> to reveal errors while packaging/creating the PKGBUILD at least. Don't
>> know why it should be avoided.
>>
>>
> fakeroot make a table of function pointers for many file manipulation
> calls, like open(), close(), chmod() and etc -> overhead, slowdowns
> (small of course)
> During the build process file perms are not necessary to be "tracked",
> or at least in 99% of packages. Only during the install process is only
> needed.
>
> If you have an example that breaks this, please let me know ;)
>
> --
> Gerardo Exequiel Pozzi ( djgera )
> http://www.djgera.com.ar
> KeyID: 0x1B8C330D
> Key fingerprint = 0CAA D5D4 CD85 4434 A219  76ED 39AB 221B 1B8C 330D
>
>
>

Nice feature! I didn't know that using package() avoids using of fakeroot.

Back to my point. There used to be a problem with compilation of
amarok1 package from AUR only because of fakeroot and I guess that it
would also help with building of mplayer (configure crashes under
fakeroot environment and needs to be patched but maybe it was fixed
meanwile alongside with amarok1 problem). So in some specific cases I
can see the point of using separate package() even when the PKGBUILD
builds only one package.

best,
Lukas