[aur-general] Review request for 3 related PKGBUILDs
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
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
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.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
More information about the aur-general