[pacman-dev] Source Package Repositories

[Allan McRae]

On 06/12/15 02:27, Sébastien Luttringer wrote:
> 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.

Just source packages made by "makepkg --source".  The upstream sources
would still need to be downloaded.

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

It will not make pacman-5.0.

A