On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 12:46 PM, Xyne <[email protected]> wrote: > I was under the impression that the naming convention for split > packages was $pkgbase-$pkgname. I've used this scheme in bauerbill to > determine the corresponding PKGBUILD of split packages in > $repo.abs.tar.gz. This works for all packages in the kernel26 PKGBUILD, > for example, but someone has discovered that this does not work with > dhclient. > > Is there simply no official rule for this or should dhclient actually > be names "dhcp-client"? I'm hoping for that latter with the expectation > that the name was not changed because the package was named "dhclient" > before the advent of split packages. Should I file a bug report and > request that the package be renamed "dhcp-client" and provide > "dhclient"? > > If not, how can I sanely determine the corresponding PKGBUILD for > packages such as dhclient which do not follow any naming convention > that would identify the matching PKGBUILD? Would it be possible to > include symlinks or duplicate PKGBUILDs in $repo.abs.tar.gz to enable > applications to determine this? > > I know that some of you feel that the sole purpose of makepkg is to > build packages and consequently have no regard for anything else one > might want to do with PKGBUILDs, but this is very unfortunate as it > severely limits the development of complementary tools. While I see the > superficial simplicity of using bash for PKGBUILDs and the convenience > of split PKGBUILDs, I really think this is going in the wrong > direction. There is a difference between simplicity and laziness, and > the trade-off of versatility and elegance is a considerable disadvantage > of this direction, as previous discussions here have shown. > >
tar xOf /home/pkg/kernel26-firmware-2.6.32.3-1-x86_64.pkg.tar.gz .PKGINFO |grep pkgbase pkgbase = kernel26 grep -A1 BASE /var/lib/pacman/sync/core/kernel26-firmware-2.6.32.3-1/desc %BASE% kernel26
