[pacman-dev] [PATCH] Move geninteg block in makepkg before error checking

Dan McGee dpmcgee at gmail.com
Tue Jun 3 01:02:48 EDT 2008

On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 3:29 PM, Roman Kyrylych
<roman.kyrylych at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2008/5/26 Xavier <shiningxc at gmail.com>:
>> On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 8:46 AM, Allan McRae <mcrae_allan at hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> This was part of a conglomerate patch I sent earlier which has now been
>>> split.
>>> I like this move because it removes two checks of GENINTEG
>> Yes, I don't like much all these checks everywhere which control the
>> flow of makepkg.
>>> plus an
>>> additional check which would be needed in the block checking the arch
>>> array.  It now also skips all the other PKGBUILD checks which shouldn't
>>> cause an error when only generating the integrity checks.  However, it
>>> does put the geninteg code block in the middle of nowhere, but I suppose
>>> it is an awkward but helpful addition to makepkg anyway.
>> Well, I am still not fully convinced this is a good thing. All these
>> errors that makepkg can detect needs to be fixed. If you run makepkg
>> -g, it is usually after you have finished writing the PKGBUILD, so all
>> errors should be fixed at that step.
>> But if everyone else thinks otherwise (you, Roman, Dan), and that
>> these errors are irrelevant to makepkg -g which can indeed still be
>> run, then fine.
>> And in this case, I prefer the new patch over the old one.
> AFAIR I proposed the same thing as Allan in the past.
> And IIRC Dan's answer was similar to yours. :-)
> Both opinions are valid, so it just a matter of preferrence.

So I just reread this patch after seeing it on Allan's "patches
pending" wiki page section. TBH it seems OK to me, especially since it
reduces the number of checks needed later in the script, although I do
see the benefit of running all these checks when generating checksums.
So I guess I am OK with merging this even though I think there are a
few drawbacks- any objections?


More information about the pacman-dev mailing list