On Tue, Nov 08, 2011 at 05:52:36AM +1000, Allan McRae wrote: > On 08/11/11 05:10, Martti Kühne wrote: > >On Mon, Nov 07, 2011 at 03:35:27PM +1000, Allan McRae wrote: > >>On 02/11/11 22:49, Martti Kühne wrote: > >>>I'd like to see support for split packages, too, maybe I'll add it some > >>>time. Using it locally, while improving my dwm patches. > >>>Different approaches include playing around with $PATH, use absolute start > >>>paths for testing, but once I got used to this way, I just can't resist it > >>>any more... :) > >>> > >> > >> > >>I do not understand the comment about split packages? How do they > >>change anything to do with extracting and replacing the checksum > >>arrays? > > > >Well, the script does not extract any checksum from a PKGBUILD and does > >currently not care about *sums assignments within functions, as may be the > >case with split packages. However I'd like to add that in a later version. > > > > There should be no *sum assignment within functions of a PKGBUILD as > that is not a variable that can be overridden within a split > package. In fact, it would make no sense at all... >
Of course. That means as far as I can tell, the only remaining problems are about $CARCH conditionals? Those aren't impossible to do, as they always seem in LR-context, too, they just need to be done right. I can look into that. > >> > >>Also the comment about $PATH confuses me... > > > >Testing a package one is working on can be done in several ways, one could > >add > >the source directory to PATH or create symlinks, or use ./blah... In case of > >a > >window manager the latter isn't comfortable, since it includes modifying > >~/.xinitrc, hence my seemingly far-fetched mentioning of $PATH. > > > > What? How is this relevant to updating checksums? No, it's not relevant. Sorry for the noise, I thought I was supposed to emphasize. The bugreport someone has linked was talking about makepkg integration by "-G" flag? cheers! mar77i
