[pacman-dev] Order of option parsing and sourcing makepkg.conf

[Allan McRae]

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:
>>>    
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> With the commit which enables us to specify the makepkg config file 
>>>> on the
>>>> command-line
>>>> (http://projects.archlinux.org/?p=pacman.git;a=commitdiff;h=4b183bf9), 
>>>> the
>>>> sourcing of the config file gets moved after the parsing of the 
>>>> options.
>>>>  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:
>>> http://archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/2008-August/007321.html
>>>     
>>
>> 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 
makepkg?

Allan