Thank you for your explanation. It's clear now that this "solution" is much more difficult to apply than to just describe it :-). However, it might be wise to add the necessary changes in a TODO list for a future pacman release, since these changes would solve many similar situations, as you already said.
Jason Chu wrote: >>As for the small package size, if it is that important we could create >>seperate packages with info documentation. What do you think? > > > I usually don't participate in these discussions because they happen every > couple months, but I've outlined problems with generating multiple package > files from a single PKGBUILD. > > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.arch.general/2831/match=multiple+package+single+pkgbuild > > That's the best reference I can find with just a cursory search. > > Now, there were patches that I wrote for gensync that let it generate > repositories from package files instead of PKGBUILDs. It was never > accepted, but it would have gotten around a lot of the one PKGBUILD, one > package problems. > > Then again srcpac, makepkg, checkpkg, extra/current/testing/unstablepkg, > and makeworld would all have to be updated. As would the software we use > for archlinux.org and the AUR. > > Cover all those cases and I'd be a lot more interested. > > Now if you're talking about documentation like qt-doc, then that's a little > more reasonable. Except that you have, worst case, twice as many packages > to maintain. > > Jason > _______________________________________________ arch mailing list [email protected] http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch
