Sigh > 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
_______________________________________________ arch mailing list [email protected] http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch
