[pacman-dev] Order of option parsing and sourcing makepkg.conf
allan at archlinux.org
Sat Dec 13 21:54:21 EST 2008
Allan McRae wrote:
> Dan McGee wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 6:55 AM, Allan McRae <allan at archlinux.org> wrote:
>>> Allan McRae wrote:
>>>> With the commit which enables us to specify the makepkg config file
>>>> on the
>>>> sourcing of the config file gets moved after the parsing of the
>>>> This creates problems with the --help flag as it needs to know what
>>>> BUILDSCRIPT is defined as. It also causes problems when specifying a
>>>> different BUILDSCRIPT with -p as this gets set during option
>>>> parsing then
>>>> gets overwritten with the makepkg config file gets sourced.
>>>> I don't see a nice fix for this. Sourcing the conf file before option
>>>> parsing and then again after if it is changed seems not good to
>>>> me. So can
>>>> we back that patch out at least temporarily.
>>>> Note that this does not effect maint so the 3.2.2 release will be
>>>> bug free
>>>> as usual.
>>> Here is a link to the original discussion of this patch:
>> Maybe we should reconsider moving BUILDSCRIPT out of makepkg and into
>> makepkg.conf? This was commit 9c9e18ef32c0cf3, it feels like eons ago.
>> But let's be honest- how often is someone going to change the name of
>> PKGBUILD or should even care about it? If we at least initially define
>> it in makepkg, and allow for overrides in makepkg.conf, it probably
>> isn't the end of the world.
> Well, that would be the easy fix I didn't see... I have no
> objections to moving BUILDSCRIPT back into makepkg. I would be
> surprised if anyone ever changed it. And we provide the "-p" flag if
> someone wants to override it anyway.
I was going to fix this issue but I was wanting to know the reasoning
behind allowing someone to set a different name for the BUILDSCRIPT.
Was for if another distro using pacman wanted to call it something other
the PKGBUILD? I.e. should I autoconf this rather than hard-coding it in
More information about the pacman-dev