[pacman-dev] Fwd: [makepkg patch - generate .SRCINFO file when running "--source"]

[Allan McRae]

On 03/08/10 19:22, vlad wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Here is a mail I sent to the arch-general list containing a patch for
> makepkg which generates a .SRCINFO file when running "makepkg --source".
> Below I'll make some more comments, present some more ideas on this
> topic.

Overall, I am quite happy with this idea.  Obviously we could tidy up 
the implementation a bit at a later stage.

First I think we need to get the formatting issues sorted, as once the 
format is set, it becomes very difficult to change.

<snip>

> .SRCINFO looks like (generated for gcc from core):
> "
> # Generated by makepkg 3.4.0
> # Tue Jul 27 12:56:38 UTC 2010
> global pkgbase = gcc
> global pkgname = gcc
> global pkgname = gcc-libs
> global pkgname = gcc-fortran
> global pkgname = gcc-objc
> global pkgname = gcc-ada
> global pkgver = 4.5.0-6

This needs to be separated into pkgver/pkgrel as both of these can be 
overridden in split packages.
...
> gcc depends = binutils>=2.20.1
> gcc depends = libmpc>=0.8.1-2
> gcc depends = cloog-ppl>=0.15.8
> gcc depends = libelf
> gcc groups = base-devel
> gcc install = gcc.install

I think the whole "global"/"splitpkg" leading entry seems fine.

<snip>

> Note that "packager" defaults to the person who actually build the
> source archive. Perhaps this has to be changed to AUR user name, not to
> the makepkg.conf PACKAGER entry.

Pacman and makepkg are distribution agnostic so the user would have to 
change the PACKAGER entry if it was deemed necessary to match the AUR 
username (which it should not have to...).


> The main idea behind this is to unify and standardize how PKGBUILDs are
> handled (mainly AUR). For now information about a package has to be parsed from the
> PKGBUILD which creates a big overhead and has many security holes.
> There are some more problems with this. As a user said, there is a
> problem with if clauses for different arches. Imo there is no sane way
> to handle this. So we should try a different approach.
> A possible one is to restrict the way architecture specific variables
> are written to PKGBUILDs; perhaps only smth like:
> "[[ $CARCH == "i686" ]]&&  sources= ... "
> Though this is quite restrictive, and I see a discussion coming up why this
> and not the other way.

I am against imposing restrictions to formatting like that as there is 
always something that needs to be done differently...

> A more elegant way - which I personally prefer - is to introduce a new
> function "arch_$CARCH" to PKGBUILDs. Actually these are two functions, arch_i686 and
> arch_x86_64, one for each architecture. These functions appear in the
> first (global) part of the PKGBUILD before the build/package functions
> and contain arch specific variables. This may look like (eg for new wine PKGBUILD):
> "
> arch=(i686 x86_64)
> license=(LGPL)
>
> arch_i686() {
>      depends=(fontconfig mesa libxcursor libxrandr libxdamage libxxf86dga alsa-lib)
>      makedepends=(autoconf ncurses bison perl fontforge flex prelink 'gcc>=4.5.0-2' cross32-gcc libgphoto2 giflib libxpm libpng libxinerama libxcomposite \
>                   libxmu libxxf86vm libxml2 libxslt libldap lcms mpg123 openal esound jack cups sane samba)
>      optdepends=(libgphoto2 giflib libpng libldap  lcms libxml2 mpg123 openal esound jack cups sane samba)
> }
>
> arch_x86_64() {
>      depends=(...)
> }
>
> source=("stuff")
> md5sums=("numbers")
>
> build() {
>      ....
> }
> "
> You get the point.
> Note that only vars are allowed in these functions; other entries are ignored.
> There should also be a list/array of allowed vars (like "splitpkg_overrides").
> There are: depends, makedepends, optdepends, source, checksums.
> Note that this does not affect the build/package functions in any way.
> The main advantages are:
> * This is a unified way to handle arch specific vars in PKGBUILDs.
>    There are no dirty hacks, no barely readable if clauses, etc.
> * This is easy to parse - if needed - and easily integrable into makepkg.
>    After sourcing the buildfile, you can first check if there is such a function
>    and than simply run it (eg: "declare -F arch_$CARCH&&  arch_$CARCH").
>    In combination with .SRCINFO there is no need to parse the
>    PKGBUILD at all afterwards.
> * And for the .SRCINFO file: with these functions you can expand (only
>    an example - as I said above, this formatting is just one possibility) the
>    separation tags to "global_i686" and "global_x86_64" which point to
>    the arch specific vars. This completes the output/writing of this file.

I am not sure about this.  Despite it being simpler on the surface, how 
would you handle this within a split package function?  I could see the 
need for different dependencies depending on architecture within a split 
package.

Allan