On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 10:16 PM, Dan McGee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 10:07 PM, Allan McRae <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Karolina Lindqvist wrote: > > > fredagen den 2 maj 2008 skrev Xavier: > > > > > > > > >> I don't think they have to coexist. > > >> I used -s a billion times (well, every single time makepkg complained > > >> about missing deps), and I didn't use -b once. And I would think I am > > >> not alone in that case. > > >> > > > > > > I have used -b a million times. If you want to build a single package, > with > > > all dependencies, from source, you need it. Co-existence of -s and -b > would > > > make it much more useful. Actually, I used such a version when: > > > > > > shakti:~$ find /server/srv/ftp/archi586/ -name '*-i586.pkg.tar.gz' | wc > > > 2587 2587 173147 > > > shakti:~$ > > > > > > I did not build all those packages by hand, but with the help of > makepkg -b > > > and makeworld. Both very useful, and both custom patched. > > > > > > > This is a good point that I hadn't even considered. I think that > > porting to other architectures in itself is a perfectly valid reason for > > keeping the -b flag. > > I think it gives a valid reason for keeping the functionality that -b > provides somewhere, but I'm not convinced that it has to be in > makepkg. > > Why couldn't anything dealing with building packages besides the one > asked for be dealt with elsewhere?
I agree with Dan. It seems like this could be broken out, but it also seems like it is tied to ABS a bit. Technically, nothing says a PKGBUILD needs to be in a dir with the same name, but -b expects that. _______________________________________________ pacman-dev mailing list [email protected] http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/pacman-dev
