[pacman-dev] [PATCH] makepkg: do not run prepare() with --noextract

[Daniel Wallace]

I kind of agree with this and would rather have a prepare switch to turn it
on with no extract.

Most of the time I have a prepare, it is for patching the source, and if I
am not extracting, then the patching would fail because the source isn't in
the right place.

My $0.02
Daniel
On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 8:44 PM Evangelos Foutras <evangelos at foutrelis.com>
wrote:

> On 17/02/16 09:50, Allan McRae wrote:
> > On 17/02/16 17:11, Evangelos Foutras wrote:
> >> This is partial revert of 8454daa7feef (makepkg: run pkgver() and
> >> prepare() with --noextract).
> >>
> >> Reasoning for the reversion (copied from FS#43498):
> >>
> >>     Running prepare() when --noextract is used no longer allows running
> >>     'makepkg -o && makepkg -e' with any PKGBUILD that applies patches in
> >>     prepare(). [1]
> >>
> >>     Sure there's --noprepare which restores the old behavior, but that's
> >>     a lot of extra typing for what I believe is a much more common use
> >>     of --noextract.
> >>
> >
> > So you are taking this from a case where you can use makepkg --noextract
> > with or without prepare() and making it so you can only use it without
> > to avoid some typing...
>
> When there is no reason to be doing that, then removing this "feature"
> is the correct approach. prepare() is there to modify the sources after
> extraction; otherwise we might as well move its body into build().
>
> Quoting another of my comments on FS#43498:
>
> =====================================================================
> I don't see the need for a --prepare switch to be used together with
> --noextract (I consider prepare() tightly coupled to source extraction);
> its usefulness would be minimal at best.
>
> If someone really wants to call prepare() when not extracting sources
> (for some special testing/bisect scenario), they can call it from build().
> =====================================================================
>
> Running prepare() with --noextract makes no sense to me and, therefore,
> do not believe it needs to be a supported configuration. YAGNI seems to
> apply in this case. [1]
>
> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_aren't_gonna_need_it
>