On 13/06/18 00:56, Eli Schwartz wrote:
> We accept package_foo() in non-split packages, because it's easier to
> switch to/from a split package just by removing a pkgname element. But
> it makes no sense to have both in one PKGBUILD.
>
> Signed-off-by: Eli Schwartz <[email protected]>
> ---
> scripts/libmakepkg/lint_pkgbuild/package_function.sh.in | 9 ++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/scripts/libmakepkg/lint_pkgbuild/package_function.sh.in
> b/scripts/libmakepkg/lint_pkgbuild/package_function.sh.in
> index e52f1325..457b8f67 100644
> --- a/scripts/libmakepkg/lint_pkgbuild/package_function.sh.in
> +++ b/scripts/libmakepkg/lint_pkgbuild/package_function.sh.in
> @@ -34,11 +34,18 @@ lint_package_function() {
> local i ret=0
>
> if (( ${#pkgname[@]} == 1 )); then
> - if have_function 'build' && ! { have_function 'package' ||
> have_function "package_$pkgname"; }; then
> + if have_function 'package' && have_function "package_$pkgname";
> then
> + error "$(gettext "Duplicate %s and %s functions in
> %s")" "package()" "package_$pkgname()" "$BUILDFILE"
I don't think duplicate is the right word here.
Conflicting?
> + ret=1
> + elif have_function 'build' && ! { have_function 'package' ||
> have_function "package_$pkgname"; }; then
> error "$(gettext "Missing %s function in %s")"
> "package()" "$BUILDFILE"
> ret=1
> fi
> else
> + if have_function "package"; then
> + error "$(gettext "Extra %s function for split package
> '%s'")" "package()" "$pkgbase"
> + ret=1
> + fi
> for i in "${pkgname[@]}"; do
> if ! have_function "package_$i"; then
> error "$(gettext "Missing %s function for split
> package '%s'")" "package_$i()" "$i"
>
