Hi, Yet another idea...
For example we need foobar, foobar-sub1, foobar-sub2 packages. We write 3 PKGBUILDs: - PKGBUILD - configure, make, install foobar files - PKGBUILD.sub1 - just install foobar-sub1 files from $startdir/src - PKGBUILD.sub2 - just install foobar-sub2 files from $startdir/src Then we type makepkg -p PKGBUILD -p PKGBUILD.sub1 -p PKGBUILD.sub2. It do following: - builds foobar with PKGBUILD, then removes only $startdir/pkg directory - builds (just install files) foobar-sub1 with PKGBUILD.sub1, then removes only $startdir/pkg directory - builds (just install files) foobar-sub2 with PKGBUILD.sub2, then removes only $startdir/pkg directory Or we use makepkg without parameter, by default it will use ./PKGBUILD as first PKGBUILD and then ./PKGBUILD.* in alphabetical order. +++ no changes in PKGBUILD format +++ small changes in makepkg +++ PKGBUILDs stay simple --- may be some options need to be added into options PKGBUILD array. (I don't know yet wich options) Is it Arch Way? What do you think? >EZ> hello, >EZ> why do we need package splitting ? personnaly i dont want to have a >EZ> complete package like gambas installed because i only need its runtime >EZ> and this goes for very other packages. >EZ> i was messing with makepkg latly to find a way to add spliting packages >ability, >EZ> i like the rpm way but ithink it doesnt share the arch goals. >EZ> the way ithink about is having a global PKGNFO file and a >EZ> PKGBUILD_subpkg-name for every sub package wich contains the build >EZ> scripts for it. >EZ> i think this way it will always be KISS and also doesn need so much >EZ> messing on makepkg script. >EZ> Virtually, >EZ> Elyess >EZ> _______________________________________________ >EZ> arch mailing list >EZ> [email protected] >EZ> http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch _______________________________________________ arch mailing list [email protected] http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch
