[pacman-dev] [PATCH v2] makepkg: reject PKGBUILDs with both split and non-split package functions

[Eli Schwartz]

We accept package_foo() in non-split packages, because it's easier to
switch to/from a split package just by removing a pkgname element. But
it makes no sense to have both in one PKGBUILD.

Signed-off-by: Eli Schwartz <eschwartz at archlinux.org>
---

v2: I agree, "Conflicting" is a better wording here.

 scripts/libmakepkg/lint_pkgbuild/package_function.sh.in | 9 ++++++++-
 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/scripts/libmakepkg/lint_pkgbuild/package_function.sh.in b/scripts/libmakepkg/lint_pkgbuild/package_function.sh.in
index e52f1325..1b973c3f 100644
--- a/scripts/libmakepkg/lint_pkgbuild/package_function.sh.in
+++ b/scripts/libmakepkg/lint_pkgbuild/package_function.sh.in
@@ -34,11 +34,18 @@ lint_package_function() {
 	local i ret=0

 	if (( ${#pkgname[@]} == 1 )); then
-		if have_function 'build' && ! { have_function 'package' || have_function "package_$pkgname"; }; then
+		if have_function 'package' && have_function "package_$pkgname"; then
+			error "$(gettext "Conflicting %s and %s functions in %s")" "package()" "package_$pkgname()" "$BUILDFILE"
+			ret=1
+		elif have_function 'build' && ! { have_function 'package' || have_function "package_$pkgname"; }; then
 			error "$(gettext "Missing %s function in %s")" "package()" "$BUILDFILE"
 			ret=1
 		fi
 	else
+		if have_function "package"; then
+			error "$(gettext "Extra %s function for split package '%s'")" "package()" "$pkgbase"
+			ret=1
+		fi
 		for i in "${pkgname[@]}"; do
 			if ! have_function "package_$i"; then
 				error "$(gettext "Missing %s function for split package '%s'")" "package_$i()" "$i"
--
2.17.1