Mail archive
alpine-devel

Re: [alpine-devel] Re: Meta package for pulling in all dev packages

From: William Pitcock <nenolod_at_dereferenced.org>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 01:11:36 -0600

Hello,

On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 6:56 AM, Alba Pompeo <albapompeo_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> What if we added ` install_if="devs $pkgname=$pkgver-r$pkgrel" ` to
> http://git.alpinelinux.org/cgit/abuild/tree/abuild.in#n1505 and
> created an APKBUILD `devs` just like `docs` ? Would it work?

Yes. It would work. We are still debating the merit of implementing
that change as we intend to cut abuild 2.30 release soon.
If accepted, it would be done in abuild 2.30 and the end result
available at the next mass rebuild or in the 3.6 branch rebuild.

> BTW, I was reading abuild.in.
> In default_doc I found a possible resource waste.
> http://git.alpinelinux.org/cgit/abuild/tree/abuild.in#n1421
> If I understand it, the ` install_if ` is reading checking *all*
> packages to see if the name is ` docs `.
> Isn't that dumb?

This is just setting the install_if contents to "docs
$pkgname=$pkgver-r$pkgrel" by default, allowing overrides in APKBUILD
to change the rule if appropriate. apk can handle these rules
intelligently in it's dependency resolver, so it is not very wasteful.

> Wouldn't be a better idea to put that line into the docs package itself?
> http://git.alpinelinux.org/cgit/aports/tree/main/docs/APKBUILD
> doc() {
> default_doc
> install_if="docs $pkgname=$pkgver-r$pkgrel"
> }
>
> What you think?

This proposed change has no effect given the above, as the default
doc() function just serves as a thunk to default_doc(). Any APKBUILD
which overrides doc() would still lose the $install_if definition.

William


---
Unsubscribe:  alpine-devel+unsubscribe_at_lists.alpinelinux.org
Help:         alpine-devel+help_at_lists.alpinelinux.org
---
Received on Tue Jan 31 2017 - 01:11:36 GMT