Aaron Griffin wrote: > One of the things we'd LOVE to do with PKGBUILDs is create the ability > to build multiple packages from one PKGBUILD. That is, we could run > make once, and create: foo, foo-libs, and foo-scripts all at the same > time.
In case some of you takes this email wrong; I dont want to step on anyones toes, but I really *really* wonder why we want to split packages? Is it not up to the developers of a program(or library, or whatnot) to do the splitting, and not the distribution? I was under the impression that Arch wanted to be as simple as possible. And to be simple we must do as the developer of appplication or library(or whatnot) do. (that it, some patches may be needed in order to forfill our own needs) If we really *really* want to have "splitted" packages, won't it be most modular to have seperat PKGBUILD's for each (splitted) package? Again, I do not wont to start a flamewar here. I just want to know why splitted packages is a good thing. IIRC Slackware, and BSDs do not do it this way (this argument don't really matter. But IMHO they do things the KISS-way(tm)) -- chs _______________________________________________ arch mailing list arch@archlinux.org http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch
