[pacman-dev] Status of "Splitting packages with makepkg"

[Allan McRae]

Aaron Griffin wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 11:18 AM, Allan McRae <allan at archlinux.org> wrote:
>   
>> Allan McRae wrote:
>>     
>>> Marc - A. Dahlhaus [ Administration | Westermann GmbH ] wrote:
>>>       
>>>> Hello Allen,
>>>>
>>>> the prototype has a little problem in case you give -L option to makepkg
>>>> as it is now:
>>>>
>>>> As makepkg pipes the output of the build-function into tee, the
>>>> build-function gets executed in a sub-shell. Any changes of variables in
>>>> context of main-shell from inside build-function will not work in that
>>>> case. This leads to that we have to set the values of all
>>>> split-package-variables outside of the respective build-functions.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>         
>>> As I said, the implementation is still a bit away...  The KDEmod guys
>>> override the PKGBUILD variables the same way.  I will look into what they
>>> for logging.
>>>       
>> Testing with this script indicates to me that everything is fine...
>>
>> test.sh:
>> #! /bin/bash
>>
>> output="FOO"
>>
>> build() {
>>  output="BAR"
>>  echo $output
>> }
>>
>> echo $output
>> build 2>&1
>> build 2>&1 | tee buildlog
>>
>>
>>     
>>> ./test.sh
>>>       
>> FOO
>> BAR
>> BAR
>>
>>     
>>> cat buildlog
>>>       
>> BAR
>>
>>
>> So what exactly are you say is wrong?
>>     
>
> I think the case he means is this:
> test.sh:
> #! /bin/bash
> output="FOO"
> build() {
>  output="BAR"
>  echo $output
> }
>
> echo $output
> build 2>&1 | tee buildlog
> echo $output
> # end
>
> ./test.sh
> FOO
> BAR
> FOO
>
> Which, after thinking a little about it, is the way we want this to happen, yes?

I think, yes it is.  From the KDEmod implementation, in the case where 
we are not logging (and hence no tee) we need to revert the variables to 
what they were before calling the build function. 

Anyway, this will all become more apparent as I finish implementing it 
(with heavy borrowing for all the patches floating around). The 
implementation can be a bit more complex to accommodate a simpler 
PKGBUILD as far as I am concerned.  Few people look at makepkg, many 
look at PKGBUILDs.

Allan