[aur-general] Review request for 3 related PKGBUILDs

Eli Schwartz eschwartz93 at gmail.com
Tue Jan 3 21:36:59 UTC 2017

On 01/03/2017 04:12 PM, Leonid Bloch wrote:
> Thanks! That was very helpful!
> All applied, except... "--skip-build" - indeed it makes sense, but I
> have never seen it with other Python packages. So I wonder if indeed it
> is a good practice, or is there some reason not to include it?

Well, python-setuptools does it, but it doesn't seem to be very popular.
Really, for Make-powered builds the dependencies for "install" are going
to run anyway (but they were built during build() and usually do
nothing, silently).
Then again, a lot of python PKGBUILDs don't have a build() function at
all, which means the package() function will invoke "build" itself.
Apparently, there is an arcane difference between building a python
module and compiling an ELF binary, but no one has told me what that
difference may be... I don't usually pay attention to what other people
do. :)

It makes no difference whether you look at the repos or the AUR, both
have people who do all three styles.

The only practical difference would be if someone, say, ran `makepkg
--nobuild && makepkg --repackage` on a VCS package, which they shouldn't.

Eli Schwartz

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/attachments/20170103/5140b45d/attachment.asc>

More information about the aur-general mailing list