On mar., 2015-09-01 at 20:06 +1000, Allan McRae wrote: > On 01/09/15 19:51, Sébastien Luttringer wrote: > > On mar., 2015-09-01 at 15:43 +1000, Allan McRae wrote: > > > On 01/09/15 11:26, Sébastien Luttringer wrote: > > > > On Fri, 2015-08-14 at 07:36 +1000, Allan McRae wrote: > > > > > On 14/08/15 05:44, Sébastien Luttringer wrote: > > > > > > On Sun, 2015-07-05 at 21:36 +1000, Allan McRae wrote: > > > > I understand the need of getting the source of the package I > > > > installed > > > > locally, but what is the pros of having special source packages in > > > > order to replace ABS, instead of a regular package putting source > > > > files > > > > in a directory like /usr/src/pacman/$pkgname/$pkgver? > > > > > > That requires installing the binary package to get the sources. > > > > > If we don't depend on the binary package in the source package, I don't > > see why. > > I got confused by your wording... "instead of a regular package putting > source files in" Now I understand that you are suggesting a package > that only has files in /usr/src/pacman/$pkgname/$pkgver and not just > putting the files there in the binary package. > > That is essentially no different to what I was proposing. Except that > using the current source package layout (i.e. no root directory), we can > have the root path completely configurable. > > The other advantage of keeping sources in a different repository type, > is that "pacman -S glibc" and "pacman -B glibc" will get glibc. No need > to have different suffixes or adding repo prefixes. > > A
Allan, Do you plan to store all the files needed to build the binary package in these source packages? I mean files in $source array. I didn't find the related commits in the pacman git tree; is this have been abandoned? Regards, -- Sébastien "Seblu" Luttringer https://seblu.net | Twitter: @seblu42 GPG: 0x2072D77A
