[pacman-dev] Alternatives system brainstorm

Daan van Rossum d.r.vanrossum at gmx.de
Wed Oct 23 14:31:10 UTC 2019

* on Wednesday, 2019-10-23 22:05 +1000, Allan McRae <allan at archlinux.org> wrote:

> Now, ignoring my comment about not commenting... My design principle for
> additions to makepkg is an addition should be mostly straight forward to
> a packager - i.e. if you can build the software manually, you can
> package it.  Suggestions that look complex to package, are too complex.
>  Looking at your suggestion (admittedly... bourbon), it did not pass my
> "that seems obvious" threshold.

I think it looks less complex in a single-line summary:

Replace "virtual packages" (those specified with "provides=()" statements in other packages) with actual packages that can make use of links prepared by providers.

The added complexity for a packager should be small:
1. packager will only work on provider packages, selector packages typically don't change
2. his/her package being a provider is optional; it will still work the same way as it does now without a provider() function
3. the provider() function can almost be copy-pasted (only paths need to be adjusted) from other providers or from the selector PKGBUILD

There ain't no such thing as a free lunch...

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/attachments/20191023/be055d76/attachment.sig>

More information about the pacman-dev mailing list