On 06/12/15 02:27, Sébastien Luttringer wrote: > 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.
Just source packages made by "makepkg --source". The upstream sources would still need to be downloaded. > I didn't find the related commits in the pacman git tree; is this have been > abandoned? It will not make pacman-5.0. A
