* on Wednesday, 2019-10-23 22:05 +1000, Allan McRae <al...@archlinux.org> wrote:
> Now, ignoring my comment about not commenting... My design principle for > additions to makepkg is an addition should be mostly straight forward to > a packager - i.e. if you can build the software manually, you can > package it. Suggestions that look complex to package, are too complex. > Looking at your suggestion (admittedly... bourbon), it did not pass my > "that seems obvious" threshold. I think it looks less complex in a single-line summary: Replace "virtual packages" (those specified with "provides=()" statements in other packages) with actual packages that can make use of links prepared by providers. The added complexity for a packager should be small: 1. packager will only work on provider packages, selector packages typically don't change 2. his/her package being a provider is optional; it will still work the same way as it does now without a provider() function 3. the provider() function can almost be copy-pasted (only paths need to be adjusted) from other providers or from the selector PKGBUILD There ain't no such thing as a free lunch... Daan
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
