[pacman-dev] Source Package Repositories

[Sébastien Luttringer]

On mar., 2015-09-01 at 20:06 +1000, Allan McRae wrote:
> On 01/09/15 19:51, Sébastien Luttringer wrote:
> > On mar., 2015-09-01 at 15:43 +1000, Allan McRae wrote:
> > > On 01/09/15 11:26, Sébastien Luttringer wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 2015-08-14 at 07:36 +1000, Allan McRae wrote:
> > > > > On 14/08/15 05:44, Sébastien Luttringer wrote:
> > > > > > On Sun, 2015-07-05 at 21:36 +1000, Allan McRae wrote:
> > > > I understand the need of getting the source of the package I
> > > > installed
> > > > locally, but what is the pros of having special source packages in
> > > > order to replace ABS, instead of a regular package putting source
> > > > files
> > > > in a directory like /usr/src/pacman/$pkgname/$pkgver?
> > > 
> > > That requires installing the binary package to get the sources.
> > > 
> > If we don't depend on the binary package in the source package, I don't
> > see why.
> 
> I got confused by your wording... "instead of a regular package putting
> source files in"  Now I understand that you are suggesting a package
> that only has files in /usr/src/pacman/$pkgname/$pkgver and not just
> putting the files there in the binary package.
> 
> That is essentially no different to what I was proposing.  Except that
> using the current source package layout (i.e. no root directory), we can
> have the root path completely configurable.
> 
> The other advantage of keeping sources in a different repository type,
> is that "pacman -S glibc" and "pacman -B glibc" will get glibc.  No need
> to have different suffixes or adding repo prefixes.
> 
> A

Allan,

Do you plan to store all the files needed to build the binary package in these
source packages? I mean files in $source array.

I didn't find the related commits in the pacman git tree; is this have been
abandoned?

Regards,


-- 
Sébastien "Seblu" Luttringer
https://seblu.net | Twitter: @seblu42
GPG: 0x2072D77A