On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 8:33 AM, Heiko Baums <[email protected]> wrote: > Am Fri, 2 Mar 2012 07:45:34 +0800 > schrieb Oon-Ee Ng <[email protected]>: > >> Splitting off from the TU application thread that's becoming more of a >> discussion on the above:- >> >> My (user) perspective - when did being able/not to install packages >> from a helper (for example yaourt) become a benchmark for deciding how >> 'correct' a PKGBUILD is? > > It's not only the helper, but it's one point. And it was not only the > split package but also those two depends arrays in some PKGBUILDs. > > A correct PKGBUILD should in my opinion respect the official packaging > standards. And since AUR doesn't support split packages it's just not > officially supported.
As I understand it the reason the AUR doesn't support split packages is more along the lines of "hard to implement" and/or "noone has bothered to add it" rather than "the AUR shall not have split packages". If a workaround allows split packages to work fine without having to rewrite the AUR, that's a GOOD thing to me. Note: 'work' means with makepkg. > > And why can't a package being built in a way that it can easily > installed by those helpers? > Helpers are only helpers. Nothing wrong with using them, but they're:- a) not official b) not a suitable substitute for knowing how to download a tarball and run makepkg If a user can't do b) AUR helpers do them a dis-service, IMO. Better to learn what's going on behind the scenes. I've used yaourt and bauerbill before, and they DO make things easier, but if we ever reach the point that a large group of users only know how to use the AUR through helpers Arch would be a very different (and worse) place.
