[pacman-dev] Ideas welcome?

[Andres P]

On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 8:19 PM, Loui Chang <louipc.ist at gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes I am recommending that it be -moved- from makepkg, but how does that
> mean I need to go away? I never said that it is unneccessary. I just
> believe the auxiliary functions should be moved into other scripts.

I agree. makepkg is too big.

It needs to be librarized in every aspect, not just per package handling.

It should look like this layout:
http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/ports/infrastructure/

If anyone would like to find an example in shell, simply install
laptop-mode-tools, pm-utils or netcfg.

Their apps are layed out in a sane hierarchy that's easy to modify and maintain.

When I wanted to change the collation of packages, just by looking at the layout
of alpm I could spot where are packages sorted.

With makepkg no one has that luxury; it's one big script and it's messy to
thread about.

Other benefits include:

* Since it'd be modularized, wrappers don't have to run the executable. They
  just source what they need. This isolates bugs like any good library would.

* I don't have to write a friggen blog on the commit message. "Modified:
  core/auth strip/libs" would set the context of my changes, like in any sane
  project.

Andres P