[pacman-dev] makepkg patch to create $pkgname-docs package for docs

[Roman Kyrylych]

2007/4/28, Xavier <shiningxc at gmail.com>:
> 2007/4/28, Travis Willard <travis at archlinux.org>:
> >
> > There's a problem with stripping stuff needed for build - that "problem"
> > is the AUR.  Someone may never expect to need to compile, but then
> > suddenly they realize this really neat or critical app is only
> > available in the AUR - what happens when they set their option to strip
> > away all these files?  How do they get them back?  This seems like it
> > could be a big hassle.
> >
>
> Neat and/or critical app should ideally be at least in community, not
> unsupported :)
>
> But you could do like in debian, having each lib splitted in foo and foo-dev.
> Build dep (depends) is foo-dev, which contains the headers and stuff,
> and runtime dep (makedepends) is foo, which contains only the lib.
> And yes, it is a big hassle. But if you care about size, it doesn't
> make sense to ignore that.
> So people who care should use a distrib that does this split imo.
> But me, I don't care at all, and want to be able to build packages
> easily, so I find arch easier to use for that.
> When you just rebuild a deb, someone already found all the *-dev files
> for building, so you can install these automatically. But when you
> want to build a new app, it's often boring to have to track all of
> them (but worth it, since you only install the -dev packages you need,
> and don't have a lot of unused ones, which takes a lot of extra
> space).

Yeah, that's what I proposed long time ago, but then stopped after
complaints that this will complicate package building (not true IMO),
PKGBUILDs (partly true) and confuse users (partlly true).
I don't argue about such splitting anymore, anyway that's not so
important nor I 100% sure it is good idea.

-- 
Roman Kyrylych (Роман Кирилич)