[pacman-dev] Handling modules

Dan McGee dpmcgee at gmail.com
Wed Mar 14 20:19:14 EDT 2007

> > This way we could also implement subpackages with a single PKGBUILD.
> >
> I really like this idea better.  See, this is why we discuss things, heh.
> I dunno if I like the naming though... maybe something that fits the
> scheme a bit better?
> PKGBUILD -> METABUILD.foo ? Just suggesting here...
> Also, we'd probably want to add some protection in there to verify
> that, if it has sub-packages, the PKGBUILD isn't attempted without the
> meta file... for instance, the pkgname=ndiswrapper${subname} could
> cause some issues if subname is undefined.

andyrtr brought up an interesting other point on #archlinux-pacman today.

17:29 < andyrtr> would allow building several i18n packages in one build process
17:30 < andyrtr> maintaining i18n packages is damn boring a lots of time
          consuming with my slow internet connection
17:31 < toofishes> so basically we need to explore the concept of one PKGBUILD
          not always equalling one package
17:32 < andyrtr> for now it could be really helpfull. maybe it would loose the
          priority when we could use pacbuild.
17:32 < andyrtr> but hey, even stupid rpm could handle that!
17:32 < toofishes> well i think it would be helpful anyway, for sake of
          maintence of PKGBUILDs. if one thing changes (download location), it
          makes sense to change it in 1 place and not 10
17:33 < toofishes> we just want to make sure we do it in a KISS way, and make
          it as generalized as possible
17:33 < andyrtr> yes, other options would be possible: stripping out headers,
          docs such stuff into seperate packages
17:34 < toofishes> ahh, i didn't even think about that, building docs at the
          same time. that would be pretty smart.

So the short summary- all of those openoffice language packs could be
built with one PKGBUILD/METABUILD whatever if we do this right.


More information about the pacman-dev mailing list