[aur-general] Fwd: aur-general Digest, Vol 82, Issue 24

[Martti Kühne]

On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 8:04 PM, Fabien Devaux <fdev31 at gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
> 1) Why is this "template" not used by most packages I've seen ?
>
> 2) What is the main difference between build() & the optional package()
> function ? (appart the error handling)
>
> 3) Why most packages I've seen are splitting build() and package()
> operations ? (build for .py? building & package for install part)

Use build() for the part where you compile stuff and make files ready
for installation within $srcdir. Use package() for the part where you
copy stuff into $pkgdir. I remember there being issues about support
of split packages and packages without a build() function, and I guess
split packages are still not supported. The wiki page mentioned
suggest that packages with only a package() function are perfectly
fine, currently. But IMO this isn't worth bumping pkgrel of my own
python related packages in this case. AFAIK package() and check() are
additions to the historically only build() function, to allow faster
and more fine-grained repackaging through makepkg. Devs do not force
use of package() for the $pkgdir stuff mentioned, so maybe I'll keep
mine in the old layout, as long as these work as fine as they
currently do.

> 4) What is the recommended way to remove files from package ? (files that
> may be required at "setup.py build" step)
<snip>

Just don't copy them into $pkgdir, or can rm them in your package()
function from $pkgdir.

Cheers!
mar77i