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]> --- v2: I agree, "Conflicting" is a better wording here. 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..1b973c3f 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 "Conflicting %s and %s functions in %s")" "package()" "package_$pkgname()" "$BUILDFILE" + 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" -- 2.17.1
