On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 09:29:30PM +1000, Allan McRae wrote: > On 11/05/10 05:30, Nezmer wrote: > >This change makes sense for me in general. The use-case I ran into was > >needing the dependencies when repackaging. > > > >Signed-off-by: Nezmer<[email protected]> > >--- > > scripts/makepkg.sh.in | 2 +- > > 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > > > >diff --git a/scripts/makepkg.sh.in b/scripts/makepkg.sh.in > >index a2db90b..34261b5 100644 > >--- a/scripts/makepkg.sh.in > >+++ b/scripts/makepkg.sh.in > >@@ -1867,7 +1867,7 @@ if (( SOURCEONLY )); then > > fi > > > > # fix flyspray bug #5973 > >-if (( NODEPS || NOBUILD || REPKG )); then > >+if (( (NODEPS || NOBUILD || REPKG)&& ! DEP_BIN )); then > > # no warning message needed for nobuild, repkg > > if (( NODEPS )); then > > warning "$(gettext "Skipping dependency checks.")" > > > I think I would prefer something like: > > if (( NODEPS || ( ( NOBUILD || REPKG ) && !DEP_BIN ) )); then > > For NODEPS, we can safely skip installing deps if someone uses > "--nodeps --syncdeps" because that person is an idiot!
There is no way to figure out what the (idiot) wants to exactly accomplish, "--nodeps" or "--syncdeps". So If you feel "--nodeps" carries more weight, then obviously your line should be used. > > I think REPKG should only installed deps when explicitly asked as a > fair portion of the time installing deps will be unneeded. Fairly asked by passing "--syncdeps" ?! > > Finally, I am not sure whether "--nobuild --syncdeps" is an OK > combination. I think it is. Of course It is. Jemmy has no internet at home. He really needs to build a package. He has to go to the Starbucks down the street in less than half an hour to fetch dist files and dependencies and go back before the battery dies. $ PACMAN="pacman --noconfirm" makepkg -so # and run! > > Sound fine? Yes. We are discussing a one-liner here. Should I copy off your line and resubmit ? > > Allan > Nezmer
