[aur-general] PKGBUILD: build() vs package() function

[Nathan O]

On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 9:29 AM, Allan McRae <allan at archlinux.org> wrote:

> On 29/08/10 06:32, Nicky726 wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> hope I don't get this missplaced, as a quick search didn'd get me any
>> results.
>>
>> When I have a package, which does actually build nothing -- say wine_gecko
>> (a
>> file only needs to be placed to a correct directory) -- I should only have
>> package() function in the PKGBUILD, is that a correct interpretation?
>>
>> Now the makepkg is happy but the AUR complaints. I can workaround that
>> with an
>> empty build() function in that case the AUR is happy but the makepkg
>> complains. So I just put in there a harmless echo and both are happy now.
>> Actually my question is not that much about the correct workarounding, as
>> it
>> is about if I really get the meaning of the build() and package()
>> functions
>> correctly, that is for building build(), for installing package()?
>>
>>
> It actually makes no difference.   Makepkg treats packages with only a
> build() function the same as packages with only a package() function in that
> everything is run under fakeroot.
>
> When both a build() and package() function are present, the build()
> function is run as the user calling makepkg and the package() function is
> run under fakeroot.
>
> So it should be clear that an empty build() function is a waste of time...
>
> Allan
>
On one of my packages, where I copied the new PKGBUILD from
/usr/share/pacman, under build(){ I did install -d ${pkgdir}/usr/bin }
since it didn't actually have a build option like ./configure make or
anything like that.

While under package(){
install -Dm755 BINARY ${pkgdir}/usr/bin/BINARY

Could maybe do it this way?