On Jun 26, 2017 9:49 PM, Dan Anderson <dan.hillier.anderson@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks for your reply 7heo. I knew makepkg used bash to invoke the install scripts, but I did not realize makepkg was actually *written in bash* until just now. Fair point! Definitely explains not using makepkg as-is.
>
> That said, reading the Alpine / Arch wiki pages on the two package formats, the packaging description isn't particularly system-dependent, especially when the setup and installation are being deferred to shell scripts (bash/ash not making a difference in the packages I've seen). Makepkg doesn't have any dependency on systemd, or the rest of the Arch base system, as far as I can tell, so that argument is a little overstated.
>
> In answer to your question, why not both alpine and arch :D ? Maybe it's a little greedy to hope to maintain one package and get another free, but I figured I'd ask and see what the barriers were like.
>
> Dan
>
> On Jun 26, 2017 2:48 PM, "7heo" <7heo@mail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Jun 26, 2017 8:38 PM, Dan Anderson <dan.hillier.anderson@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Just got started using alpine; I've been having a good time. However, I'm curious about the design of abuild: the APKBUILD format is (nearly) a direct clone of Arch's MAKEPKG, but with small incompatibilities. 
>> >
>> > What was the reason behind not just using makepkg as it was (missing functionality?), and would patches aimed at improving compatibility be worth-while? Reducing the friction porting, say, AUR packages to alpine seems useful to me.
>>
>> That cannot happen without making Alpine arch. So without adopting systemd, bash, and many more software it won't happen. If you want arch, why don't you use arch? :)
>>
>> Best
>> 7heo

Well, the argument isn't really overstated no, because the only use of "reducing the friction" as you put it would be to reuse manifests that rely on systemd unit files, and other software we do not use. Since there will be work anyway to adapt that, your proposal isn't going to reduce much friction. That's why not both. If we wanted arch, we'd be using arch, and Alpine wouldn't exist.

7heo

Yep, this isn't a good proposal: effort saved would be a teeny fraction of
total effort in the best case scenario. I guess I didn't mean for it to be
taken as a serious proposal, just a noob trying to pick the brains of the
real devs. Thanks for taking the time to set me straight.

On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 4:07 PM, 7heo <7heo@mail.com> wrote:

> On Jun 26, 2017 9:49 PM, Dan Anderson <dan.hillier.anderson@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for your reply 7heo. I knew makepkg used bash to invoke the
> install scripts, but I did not realize makepkg was actually *written in
> bash* until just now. Fair point! Definitely explains not using makepkg
> as-is.
> >
> > That said, reading the Alpine / Arch wiki pages on the two package
> formats, the packaging description isn't particularly system-dependent,
> especially when the setup and installation are being deferred to shell
> scripts (bash/ash not making a difference in the packages I've seen).
> Makepkg doesn't have any dependency on systemd, or the rest of the Arch
> base system, as far as I can tell, so that argument is a little overstated.
> >
> > In answer to your question, why not both alpine and arch :D ? Maybe it's
> a little greedy to hope to maintain one package and get another free, but I
> figured I'd ask and see what the barriers were like.
> >
> > Dan
> >
> > On Jun 26, 2017 2:48 PM, "7heo" <7heo@mail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Jun 26, 2017 8:38 PM, Dan Anderson <dan.hillier.anderson@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Just got started using alpine; I've been having a good time. However,
> I'm curious about the design of abuild: the APKBUILD format is (nearly) a
> direct clone of Arch's MAKEPKG, but with small incompatibilities.
> >> >
> >> > What was the reason behind not just using makepkg as it was (missing
> functionality?), and would patches aimed at improving compatibility be
> worth-while? Reducing the friction porting, say, AUR packages to alpine
> seems useful to me.
> >>
> >> That cannot happen without making Alpine arch. So without adopting
> systemd, bash, and many more software it won't happen. If you want arch,
> why don't you use arch? :)
> >>
> >> Best
> >> 7heo
>
> Well, the argument isn't really overstated no, because the only use of
> "reducing the friction" as you put it would be to reuse manifests that rely
> on systemd unit files, and other software we do not use. Since there will
> be work anyway to adapt that, your proposal isn't going to reduce much
> friction. That's why not both. If we wanted arch, we'd be using arch, and
> Alpine wouldn't exist.
>
> 7heo