Mail archive

Re: [alpine-devel] abuild vs. makepkg

From: William Pitcock <>
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2017 11:12:04 -0500


On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 1:38 PM, Dan Anderson
<> 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.

Alpine's APKBUILD format is indeed derived from PKGBUILD.

> What was the reason behind not just using makepkg as it was (missing
> functionality?),

makepkg generates packages for pacman, not apk, so we would still need
to write our own tool.

If you look at the format itself instead, the reason why is because
makepkg depends on bash, while Alpine's /bin/sh is an Almquist shell,
not bash. As such, it does not support some of the bash extensions
that makepkg uses. Put differently, abuild is an adaptation of the
PKGBUILD format used by makepkg that has been adapted to meet Alpine
policy (in terms of our /bin/sh being different and different
packaging objectives).

> and would patches aimed at improving compatibility be
> worth-while?

The patches you propose would not be worth-while, because they would
require us to depend on bash for using abuild. We don't wish to add
additional dependencies to abuild, and would rather use the official
Alpine /bin/sh.

> Reducing the friction porting, say, AUR packages to alpine
> seems useful to me.

Largely this is going to be an area of friction that is not reduced by
supporting makepkg syntax. The main areas of friction involve
Alpine's non-use of glibc and systemd.


Received on Thu Jun 29 2017 - 11:12:04 UTC