Ciprian Dorin, Craciun wrote:
On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 2:39 AM, Dan McGee <[email protected]> wrote:
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 3:48 PM, Allan McRae <[email protected]> wrote:
Ciprian Dorin, Craciun wrote:
Hello all!
Again I have a proposal to enhance makepkg PURGE_TARGETS handling.
I think that enabling customizing PURGE_TARGETS inside PKGBUILD
would be a benefit in the following context:
Without checking, I would have thought that exporting "PURGE_TRAGETS=..."
within a package function would just work. I guess the old value would not
be restored afterwards though.
This seems like complete overkill for makepkg to support. I'm -1 on this.
What overkill? Really? It's a 3 or 4-line update:
~~~~ instead of this:
if [ "$(check_option purge)" = "y" -a -n "${PURGE_TARGETS[*]}" ]; then
msg2 "$(gettext "Purging other files...")"
~~~~ we'll have this:
+ local purge_targets=( "${pkg_purge_targe...@]:-${purge_targe...@]}}" )
+ eval 'purge_targets=(
"${'"${pkgname}"'_purge_targe...@]:-${purge_targe...@]}" )'
+ if [ "$(check_option purge)" = "y" -a -n "${purge_targets[*]}" ]; then
- if [ "$(check_option purge)" = "y" -a -n "${PURGE_TARGETS[*]}" ]; then
msg2 "$(gettext "Purging other files...")"
~~~~ and we have to replace `PURGE_TARGETS` with `purge_targets`
somewhare below in 2 places.
As I said, defining PURGE_TARGETS in a package_foo() function already works:
e.g.
package_t1() {
PURGE_TARGETS=(*.a)
touch $pkgdir/foo.a
touch $pkgdir/foo.doc
}
package_t2() {
PURGE_TARGETS=(*.doc)
touch $pkgdir/foo.a
touch $pkgdir/foo.doc
}
Guess which file ends up in which package...
Guys, as developers of makepkg, you really have something against
extensions that would allow writing simpler or more versatile
PKGBUILD's...
No, we just do not believe any of the ideas you have shown us so far are
making simpler PKGBUILDs or achieving something that can not already be
done with makepkg using the same number of lines in the PKGBUILD
For example, below is one of my PKGBUILDS, that uses what I call a
"template", which allows me to abstract away patching, calling
configure, and make. And in order to support this split of packages,
all I have to do is update my `configure+make+make-install` script to
understand this, and just put `pkgname=( isync-bin isync-doc )`.
(Unfortunately this doesn't have a lib or dev).
My `configure+make+make-install` just implements `build` and
`package` functions that use the variables defined in the PKGBUILD,
with some sensible defaults. (I think this resembles somehow GoboLinux
recipies...)
~~~~
. "${pkgbuild_tools_root}/configure+make+make-install"
pkgname=( isync )
_pkgver=1.0.4
_pkgpatch=+1
pkgver="${_pkgver}${_pkgpatch}"
pkgrel=1
depends=()
makedepends=(
openssl db
gcc binutils glibc
make coreutils bash
sed grep patch
)
_declare_arch
_declare_paths
_declare_build_environment
_declare_configure_options
_configure_options=(
"${_configure_optio...@]}"
--disable-compat
)
_LIBS=(
"${_li...@]}"
-static
-ldb -lpthread
)
_src_patches=(
imap_recursive_maildir.patch
imap_certificate_ignore.patch
)
source=(
"http://switch.dl.sourceforge.net/project/isync/isync/${_pkgver}/isync-${_pkgver}.tar.gz";
imap_recursive_maildir.patch
imap_certificate_ignore.patch
)
md5sums=(
8a836a6f4b43cd38a8b8153048417616
fd42b61f2979d2bf2d08f1528a292ec5
efbe84127425024676b07c2fdef87a98
)
I would not call that simpler. I look at that and have only vague ideas
what the packaging would be doing, whereas a normal package I see the
exact commands.
Allan
