[pacman-dev] [RFC] Introduce pkgsuffix to PKGBUILD spec

Jerome Leclanche adys.wh at gmail.com
Thu Jan 16 18:54:24 EST 2014

On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 10:15 PM, Dave Reisner <d at falconindy.com> wrote:
> Hi,
> I've been parsing a large number of PKGBUILDs recently, and in doing so,
> learned a lot about how people misuse PKGBUILDs. One case in particular
> that intrigues me is the core/linux PKGBUILD in Arch[1] which uses code
> generation to create the package_* functions. This is mainly done for the
> purposes of making users' lives easier, as they have fewer changes they
> need to maintain. On the other hand, this makes the PKGBUILD far harder
> to parse, and perhaps arguably harder to read.
> I thought about how else this could be solved and came up with the
> idea of introducing a 'pkgsuffix' variable in the PKGBUILD spec. The
> name should make it obvious as to what it does -- for any package
> defined in the PKGBUILD, append $pkgsuffix to the name. I've already
> written an initial patch for makepkg which ends up being quite simple.
> Implementation details:
> The suffix should be as transparent as possible. The only time the full
> with-suffix names appear is in the final package output (tarball name
> and .PKGINFO). That means packages (when referenced via the --pkg flag)
> will still be the non-suffixed name.
> Source packages are a little trickier. I can imagine cases for including
> or excluding the suffix in the tarball name, but I went with the
> exclusion route. Note that the pkgname portion of the source tarball
> name is somewhat insignificant, as you could have pkgbase=voltron,
> pkgname=daibazaal, and the source tarball name would be voltron.
> Appending the suffix is, IMO, equally insigificant since the suffix
> applies to the output package names, not the pkgbase.
> Something that surfaced early in testing is a question about
> dependencies. My patch currently implicitly adds provides and conflicts
> for the pkgname sans-suffix. I think that there's a lot more cases where
> this is the right, rather than wrong, thing to do. At the moment, these
> added dependencies are unversioned.
> Thoughts?
> d
> [1] https://projects.archlinux.org/svntogit/packages.git/tree/trunk/PKGBUILD?h=packages/linux#n353

Where else would you see it used? Would it be appropriate for git
packages? (eg pkgsuffix=git) And if so, would introducing a $pkgprefix
make sense, for symmetry?

J. Leclanche

More information about the pacman-dev mailing list