On Friday 01 July 2005 10:45, A. S. Budden wrote: > Suffice to say I was pleased when I realised that makepkg is just a > script and hence easily editable... > > Each to their own I guess.
I have just been hit by an idea: What if, instead of deleting, makepkg could create a separate package with those documents, called, let's say "$pkgname-docs" (or "$pkgname-doc"). * $pkgname-docs' PKGBUILD could be automatically generated (this might be a bit difficult), so that it could be shared (if the package wouldn't actually be put online). Actually, copying all the fields from the original PKGBUILD might not be very difficult. A particular de-achiving method would hurt the automated process. * $pkgname-docs would depend on $pkgname (well, this might not fit all the cases) * could be a default option for makepkg - makepkg could create a package on his own, without generating a $pkgname-docs PKGBUILD, just by copying (instead of removing) the docs to $startdir/docs (just like in $startdir/pkg) and pack that dir with the package tags in the original PKGBUILD (the package maintainer could decide then wether it will publish $pkgname-docs or not, since it won't break anything) * if it's not a default option in makepkg, it could be a makepkg switch (I don't like this since it would require building AGAIN the package just to get a copy of the docs out of the original install). * all the *-docs packages could be put in a separate repo, let's say [docs] (between the above ideas you don't have to put AND, OR is more appropriate) Mircea /IceRAM P.S. I am currently in search of the Qt & Java documentation which I don't know if they can be found in the source packages (downloading the src packages would take a while). The search continues... -- http://mircea.bardac.net
pgpSSyNeQ5kcx.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ arch mailing list [email protected] http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch
