Again, how about making "makepkg" as a standalone and simple bash scripts
app, seperated from pacman. If there is any technical difficulties please
forgive me, I am not a dev but a user.
On 9/25/07, Mister Dobalina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> --- Richard Uhtenwoldt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Essien Ita Essien writes:
> > >Alessio 'mOLOk' Bolognino wrote:
> > >>
> > >> PKGBUILDs are bash scripts, what does
> > build("mysql") mean in bash
> > >> scripting?
> > >
> > >PKGBUILDs don't _have_ to remain bash scripts... as
> > long as we don't
> > >expect users to do a ./PKGBUILD just to build a
> > package.
> > >
> > >One of the things i've learnt is that the _user_
> > interface should be
> > >allowed to be awkward, just to keep the
> > implementors work down to a
> > >minimum. Also parsing of simple formats like this
> > are actually a plus
> > >(depends on who's thinking of it though). I think,
> > if we keep limiting
> > >it to bash scripting idioms we'll be neglecting the
> > reality infront of
> > >us which is that a PKGBUILD is _not_ _actually_ a
> > bash script, its a
> > >_makepkg_ script :)
> >
> > It seems to me that you do not understand the KISS
> > philosophy.
> >
> > You have not made a case that bash is not up to the
> > job, but even
> > if bash were not up to the job, before resorting to
> > defining a
> > new language (the makepkg script), a person should
> > try to replace
> > bash with another _existing_ language. (Python,
> > say.)
> >
> > Unix and Linux already have too many little
> > languages.
> >
>
> I'd like to second this. The current PKGBUILD format
> is very easy to write, read, and debug, and it doesn't
> seem like extending the current format to support
> split packages should be that hard -- there have
> already been several workable suggestions. Also, you
> should consider that people might like to write their
> own PKGBUILD parsing scripts for their own nefarious
> purposes (even other than building packages), and
> having things in bash script makes small one-off tasks
> of such type pretty simple.
>
> You also don't necessarily need to go whole hog with
> rewriting makepkg in some other language, either. If
> there are parts of makepkg that are cumbersome to deal
> with in a bash script (certainly dependency checking
> would be one), one simple solution might be to work in
> the same vein as the hidden -T pacman option (that
> Judd, what a sneaky guy). Create a binary helper
> program, written in whatever language you like, to
> handle the nasty bits, but keep makepkg in bash script
> and have the two communicate via whatever IPC floats
> your boat.
>
> Cheers.
>
>
>
> Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk
> email the boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail at
> http://mrd.mail.yahoo.com/try_beta?.intl=ca
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> arch mailing list
> arch@archlinux.org
> http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch
>
_______________________________________________
arch mailing list
arch@archlinux.org
http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch
