On Sun, Sep 23, 2007 at 09:28:54AM +0100, Essien Ita Essien wrote: > > yeah... that's my point actually. That we're currently limiting our > thinking because we're using bash to interpret the raw PKGBUILD. True a > selfwritten parser may not be *that* simple to write... (though its > really not that hard to write a custom makepkg script to bash script > translator) but if its a path that would be worth investigating, I'm > saying we shouldn't limit ourselves just based on the fact that it is > currently _directly_ intepreted by bash himself :) >
But then, what would be the reason of having makepkg written in bash? There was a little discussion recently on pacman-dev ML. Someone asked why makepkg was written in bash, since this prevents it from using libalpm directly. For example, pacman has an hidden (undocumented) -T option used only by makepkg for dependency checking. So if makepkg could use libalpm directly instead, it would probably be cleaner : http://archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/2007-September/009316.html The main argument for having makepkg in bash is that PKGBUILDs themselves are in bash : http://archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/2007-September/009323.html _______________________________________________ arch mailing list arch@archlinux.org http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch
