[aur-general] Split packages

Eli Schwartz eschwartz93 at gmail.com
Tue Aug 23 15:33:38 UTC 2016

On 08/23/2016 10:57 AM, Doug Newgard wrote:
> You call multiple PKGBUILDs abuse. I call copying the entire source and running
> two builds in a single PGKBUILD abuse. There is only one build function for a
> reason.

If you wish to make that claim, I am sure you can come up with a better
reason than "there is only one build function for a reason".
There is only one build function, because there is no reason to have
multiple build functions. But there is a reason to have multiple
package_* functions, because each package_* function defines the final
contents of a split package.

You already know this.


FUD aside, the prevailing opinion by Developers, Trusted Users, and AUR
contributors is against you.
As Levente said, it is not very sensible to maintain and bump pkgvers
for multiple PKGBUILDs, then download and build them all separately one
by one.

As a maintainer, it is a waste of effort, and as someone building both
packages, it is a waste of effort.

> PKGBUILDs are based around 1 build, not one source.

Says who? I'll say that PKGBUILDs are based around "one logically
contiguous thing to desire to create"...

Anyway, maybe we should build each component of a split PKGBUILD
separately, as long as their Makefile defines separate sub-targets
(which don't depend on each other). There are more than a couple of those...

I think it is a problem to be overly-pedantic about what should define a
PKGBUILD, rather than simply going with whatever, practically speaking,
is advantageous.

Eli Schwartz

More information about the aur-general mailing list