Geoffroy Carrier wrote:
> Hi!
>
> See patches as attachments. Globally cosmetic changes.
>
>
It is much better to put patches inline so we can comment on them directly.
> Assumptions:
> - $startdir should be used as $srcdir and $pkgdir parent, as it could
> be useful, for example, to have $pkgdir in a
> tmpfs
> => Removed any reference to "$startdir/pkg" or "$startdir/src"
> => Relative paths to switch between $srcdir and $pkgdir should be
> avoided. E.g.:
> cd $srcdir/A
> patch [...] < ../../pkg/
> is non-sense
>
I must be missing something here... where exactly are you changing
$srcdir or $pkgdir not to point at $startdir/src and $startdir/pkg? You
can have these directories as tmpfs if you really want but how does that
need this change? I also like the use of $startdir/* because it is
quite obvious what the startdir is.
> - $pkgdir and $srcdir could contain namespaces, etc. and we shouldn't
> try to guess about $IFS
> => "$srcdir/A" instead of $srcdir/A (use of "")
>
Quoting paths with variable names seems a good idea.
> - Still, lightweight means smater
> => Don't use
> "$_svntrunk" ${something}
> instead of
> $_svntrunk $something
>
Where exactly is this change?
> - "folder" is prefered to "folder/" in our scripts, but we should not
> suppose a makefile doesn't use something like
> "${DESTDIR}usr/bin"
> => DESTDIR="$pkgdir/", "$pkgdir" otherwise
>
>
It would be a poorly formed makefile if it did this, but I have struck
this once problem before. It is also readily noticeable when building
the package so I'm not sure if this is really needed.
Allan
_______________________________________________
pacman-dev mailing list
pacman-dev@archlinux.org
http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/pacman-dev
