[pacman-dev] Ideas welcome?
aepd87 at gmail.com
Thu Jun 24 21:01:19 EDT 2010
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:
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
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
More information about the pacman-dev