On 7/1/05, Mircea Bardac <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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]
Just a thought, but you could extend this model to an option in pacman.conf that says "if I install package x and package x-docs exists in [docs], install that too". Then users (like me) who would like to have the docs can just tweak a simple option in pacman.conf and other users can leave it as standard. Al _______________________________________________ arch mailing list [email protected] http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch
