[pacman-dev] Ideas welcome?

[Loui Chang]

On Fri 25 Jun 2010 12:09 +1000, Allan McRae wrote:
> I said "go away, do some packaging"  not just go away...   Automatic
> dependency checking, installation (and removal) is an essential part
> of makepkg.  I doubt any heavy makepkg user would disagree with me
> there. So what would moving it to another script achieve in
> practice?  It would be a script likely only used by makepkg,
> essential to any real world use of makepkg and maintained alongside
> makepkg.  And to be clear, you said "those things are better placed
> in outside scripts (like yaourt)" which implies you did not see them
> as necessary in the makepkg code base.

Andres has mentioned some benefits.
A more distinct separation of a PKGBUILD's definition and processing
from extra conveniences interests me. I already perform some of these
extras outside of makepkg.

> >I hardly need to do any packaging to see the flaws in the AUR, aurtools
> >(defunct), and devtools. What makes makepkg the exception?
>
> makepkg does packaging...  none of the other tools you mention do.

These are related to packaging. My point really is that without using
them much I can already see the problems. The same applies with makepkg.

> >I don't understand how my opinion on the design of the tools would be so
> >dramatically changed whether I've made 10 packages, or 100.
>
> Making 10 packages means you refer to things like "package
> installation, uninstallation" as "auxiliary functions". Making 1000s
> of packages means you see them as essential and not feature bloat as
> you original email labeled them.  Much like I only have 1 AUR
> package installed, so I see no need for AUR helpers while heary AUR
> users strong disagree.

Right. Just because someone sees a part as essential doesn't really
make it so. Meaning, that it isn't integral to the program's core
purpose. Chroot packaging, and namcap might be essential to some, but
they are not part of makepkg. You can have all those functions
elsewhere and still get the benefits. It's just a difference of design.

> >At least you could say "patches welcome". I guess that wouldn't be of
> >much use though, because you've already completely dismissed my
> >comments. Sorry. I didn't mean to offend your own opinions.
>
> I say patches welcome when I like the idea.   You original email
> said "I think those things are better placed in outside scripts
> (like yaourt)".  That tells me you do not even want this in the
> makepkg code base.  I strongly disagreed so what would be the point
> of welcoming patches for it...

You're right. I don't think they should really be part of the makepkg
codebase. If they existed externally, would that make them less
effective? Probably not.

Anyways, I'm not asking you to do anything other than accept that my
ideas might have some validity. Thanks.