On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 4:09 AM, Allan McRae <[email protected]> wrote: > On 06/05/10 11:41, Loui Chang wrote: >> >> On Thu 06 May 2010 10:51 +1000, Allan McRae wrote: >>> >>> 2) cd1378d makepkg: rework --skipinteg >>> >>> This is very, very, VERY useful. I did not have makepkg-git on my >>> new computer earlier this week and the current makepkg behaviour >>> annoyed me A LOT. >>> >>> This is particularly useful when testing out a patch that you need to >>> repeatedly modify. You only need to update your checksums once it is >>> working. I use this very frequently, but then again I do more >>> packaging than most. >> >> I believe this is bad behaviour. makepkg should be used to package >> software, not help you develop patches for it. > > Not being condescending here, but you obviously do not do much packaging. > Packaging software requires patching software. e.g. gcc-4.x header > changes, libpng API changes, etc. It is a lot easier for me to run "makepkg > --skipinteg" to test the state of a patch to fix build issues that it is to > manually extract the tarball, apply the patch, configure, make... >
To complete Allan's arguments : 90% of the pkgbuilds I build are not meant to be shared with anyone else, usually ABS or AUR packages, sometimes slightly customized for my needs. Why couldn't I enable a non-default behavior that skip integs when I know they will fail and I don't care what the new checksums are ? "non-default behavior" is the important part here, if this was default, I would be totally against this behavior. >>> 3) 5d911ae makepkg: allow skipping integrity checks when making >>> source package >> >>> And here is the fun one... "makepkg --source" currently requires >>> checking all checksums. Using "-source --skipinteg" does not skip >>> this, which in itself makes little sense to me. The argument that >>> this stops people distributing packages with bad checksums is flawed. >>> There is nothing stopping them doing that now. They just have to not >>> use makepkg when creating the tarball, which could lead to even worse >>> PKGBUILDs being distributed as none of makepkg's other checks would >>> be performed. >> >> Just because someone can manually make a bad source package there's no >> excuse to put bad behaviour into makepkg. The same applies to binary >> packages. > > Why is it bad behaviour? I think you are just assuming the user is stupid > and will use it unnecessarily. "pacman -Rd" and "pacman -Sf" are stupid in > most cases, but we do not remove them as they are also useful in others > cases. Similarly, I provided two usage cases where it is perfectly > reasonable behaviour to skip integrity checks. > > Skipping integrity checks is not going to be the default behaviour and does > not even have a shorthand option. The user has to specifically want to use > it. Lets make the assumption that if someone goes out of their way to type > "--skipinteg", that they are doing it deliberately. > Agreed. If we assume the user is completely stupid, we can't develop softwares. We can't produce anything actually. We might need a notice or disclaimer to ship pacman and makepkg :P
