[pacman-dev] [PATCH] makepkg: remove ability to build individual packages

Que Quotion quequotion at gmail.com
Tue Sep 22 20:17:37 UTC 2015

>there can silently exist package order dependencies between package

I find it hilarious that Dave Reisner points this out, because it is his
packages that are full of this problem: one package function putting files
in place for another, such that all the functions have to be done, and be
done in the order he expects them to be done or packging will fail.

Anyway it looks like the issue is settled...

On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 11:57 PM, Que Quotion <quequotion at gmail.com> wrote:

> Case in point, I had some trouble pakaging several packages today.
> One was libsystemd, which I've already submitted a patch for.
> https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/46382
> Another was libutil-lnux, which will need a little more help.
> https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/46383
> In both cases $pkgname was used where $pkgbase should be (fixed in an
> earlier report for systemd) and then both packages use one
> package_something() function to put files in place for another
> package_somethingelse() function--both by moving files from $pkgdir into
> $srcdir. This seems like bad practice to me, isn't necessary, and could be
> done better: My proposal for systemd shortens the PKGBUILD by a few lines
> and doesn't touch $srcdir.
> Removing the "--pkg" feature of makepkg will only allow more bad practice
> that will be harder to undo should we change our minds down the line.
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 11:40 PM, Que Quotion <quequotion at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> In other words, rather than fix the packages to be safer and more
>> logical, go ahead and let people write sloppy PKGBUILDs?
>> For what it's worth, I think this is a bad idea.
>> The changes needed to fix the packages are small, and this would reduce
>> the ability of users to automate upgrading from ABS.
>> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 11:33 PM, Allan McRae <allan at archlinux.org>
>> wrote:
>>> On 23/09/15 00:20, Pierre Neidhardt wrote:
>>> > I might have missed something in the previous messages, but is there
>>> any
>>> > rationale on this, beside debatable worthiness?
>>> >
>>> Many packages break when using this.
>>> Some are because assumptions made on build() about the value of $pkgname
>>> which changes when --pkg was used.  These should use $pkgbase anyway...
>>> Also, there are quite a few split packages that rely on the first first
>>> split-package being packaged for the rest of the package functions to
>>> work.   This will become more prevalent when a way to do a "make
>>> install" followed by moving files into different packages becomes
>>> available (i.e. rpm packaging style - I am working on this).
>>> So...  essentially, it is (debatably) broken and will become more broken
>>> in the future

More information about the pacman-dev mailing list