[pacman-dev] [PATCHv2 2/2] handle arch specific attributes

[Allan McRae]

On 03/08/14 22:57, Dave Reisner wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 03, 2014 at 06:50:19PM +1000, Allan McRae wrote:
>> On 03/08/14 01:54, Dave Reisner wrote:
>>> This introduces support for architecutre-specific conflicts, depends,
>>> optdepends, makedepends, replaces, and conflicts by appending "_$CARCH"
>>> to the array name. For example, in the global section:
>>>
>>>   arch=('i686' 'x86_64')
>>>   depends=('foo')
>>>   depends_x86_64=('bar')
>>>
>>> This will generate depends of 'foo' and 'bar' on x86_64, but only 'foo'
>>> on i686. Moreover, this is supported in the package functions with the
>>> same heuristics as the generic names, e.g.
>>>
>>>   ...
>>>   arch=('i686' 'x86_64')
>>>   depends=('foo')
>>>   ...
>>>
>>>   package_somepkg() {
>>>     depends_x86_64=('bar')
>>>
>>>     ...
>>>   }
>>>
>>> Again, will cause x86_64 to have depends of 'foo' and 'bar', but only
>>> 'foo' for i686.
>>> ---
>>> v2:
>>> 1) extended this to a bunch more attributes -- some of them I can't
>>> necessarily reason an immediate use case for, but conceptually could
>>> have their uses as arch-specific attributes.
>>> 2) Added documentation
>>> 3) Added check_sanity support post mega-refactoring.
>>>
>>>  doc/PKGBUILD.5.txt    | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++
>>>  scripts/makepkg.sh.in | 46 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
>>>  2 files changed, 64 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/doc/PKGBUILD.5.txt b/doc/PKGBUILD.5.txt
>>> index 17e8af2..5cebbbd 100644
>>> --- a/doc/PKGBUILD.5.txt
>>> +++ b/doc/PKGBUILD.5.txt
>>> @@ -183,17 +183,26 @@ If the dependency name appears to be a library (ends with .so), makepkg will
>>>  try to find a binary that depends on the library in the built package and
>>>  append the version needed by the binary. Appending the version yourself
>>>  disables automatic detection.
>>> ++
>>> +Architecture-specific depends can be added by appending an underscore and the
>>> +architecture name e.g., 'depends_x86_64=()'.
>>>  
>>
>> Do we want to repeat this sentence many times or add a single section
>> detailing architecture specific additions.
> 
> I think it's more clear to document it directly alongside the relevant
> variables instead of breaking out a new section.
> 
>> Also, despite "added" there, I do not find it clear that these are
>> overrides.  Perhaps "Additional architecture-specific..." would help.
>> If this was in its own section, it could be expanded for clarity.
>>
> 
> It's not clear that they're overrides because they *aren't* overrides.

Oops...  I meant it is not clear that the aren't overrides.  Hence my
suggestion "Additional architec..".  or maybe:

Architecture-specific depends can be added to the specified dependencies
by appending an ...