[pacman-dev] [PATCH] Introduce new PKGBUILD variable `changelog`

[Allan McRae]

Dan McGee wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 9:10 AM, Cedric Staniewski <cedric at gmx.ca> wrote:
>   
>> Currently, a changelog is added to a package if a specific file with a
>> hardcoded name exists in the PKGBUILD's directory. This approach is not
>> pretty and also inconsistent with the handling of install files, but it
>> works.
>>
>> With the introduction of split PKGBUILDs, however, a drawback in this
>> old behavior has arisen: you only have the possibility to include one
>> specific changelog file in either every package defined in the PKGBUILD
>> or in none.
>>
>> The use of an additional variable, `changelog`, works around this issue
>> and makes it possible to include a changelog in only some of the
>> packages, and besides, each package of the PKGBUILD can have its own
>> changelog file.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Cedric Staniewski <cedric at gmx.ca>
>> ---
>>     
> Before we pull this, can you (or Allan) make some changes? It isn't
> quite ready for primetime yet.
>
>   
>> <snip>
>> +*changelog*::
>> +       Specifies a changelog file which is supposed to be included in the package.
>>     
> "supposed"? Since we fail hard if it is missing, just keep the
> language more direct.
> "Specifies a changelog file which is to be included in the package."
> In reality, we should keep the language for this and the install file
> as similar as possible, as I believe they are under the same set of
> rules.
>
>   

Fixed.

>> @@ -1059,9 +1059,13 @@ create_srcpackage() {
>>                fi
>>        fi
>>
>> -       if [ -f ChangeLog ]; then
>> -               msg2 "$(gettext "Adding %s...")" "ChangeLog"
>> -               ln -s "${startdir}/ChangeLog" "${srclinks}/${pkgbase}"
>> +       if [ -n "$changelog" ]; then
>> +               if [ -f "$changelog" ]; then
>> +                       msg2 "$(gettext "Adding package changelog...")"
>> +                       ln -s "${startdir}/$changelog" "${srclinks}/${pkgbase}/"
>> +               else
>> +                       error "$(gettext "Changelog file %s not found.")" "$changelog"
>> +               fi
>>        fi
>>
>>        local netfile
>> @@ -1193,6 +1197,11 @@ check_sanity() {
>>                return 1
>>        fi
>>
>> +       if [ -n "$changelog" -a ! -f "$changelog" ]; then
>> +               error "$(gettext "Changelog file (%s) does not exist.")" "$changelog"
>>     
> Not cool for translators to have two messages that say the same thing,
> but are not the same. Please choose one (that hopefully resembles the
> install script missing message).
> However, why do we do this check in two places? Is it due to split
> packages? And we fail in one, but not in the other.
>   

These exactly the same as the two messages for install files.  I can 
make the two messages the same and just pull in a similar change for the 
install file.

And the second check is because the check_sanity script misses variables 
in package() functions (http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/16004).  The lack 
of fail in the second one is a bit weird, but that chack is done at the 
end of the packaging rather than at the start where we do fail.

Allan