Subject: [alpine-devel] rename the APKBUILDs

From: Natanael Copa <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 11:31:21 +0100

Hi,

As some of you have noticed, we are working on a new buildtree[1]. The
goal is that alpine can build itself, without help from gentoo.

I think we reached that point now, even if tons of packages needs to
ported from gentoo style build to new alpine build environment.

You might have seen patches with new "aports" for new build tree on this
list and there will come more of that.

I would like to rename the APKBUILD to soemthing with .sh extension to
get the syntax higlight from vim. APKBUILD is also kinda hard to type
fast too.

So I would like to ask everyone: Ok if i break the entire tree (again)
and rename all APKBUILD to ABUILD.sh?

Is this name ok for everyone? We coudl use small letters to: abuild.sh
but its nice when the abuild are clearly different the the rest of the
files in a dir listing.

Other ideas? thoughts?

-nc

[1] http://dev.alpinelinux.org/cgit/cgit.cgi/aports/

---
Unsubscribe:  [email-masked]
Help:         [email-masked]
---

---

From: Timo Teräs <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 12:46:24 +0200

> but its nice when the abuild are clearly different the the rest of the

It is not a shell script to be ran as-is, instead it's something used
by abuild, so I'd rather not have it .sh extension. Otherwise it's
confusing.

How about adding #! line at start, usually editors recognize those
and can give syntax highlighting with those. Or add an editor specific
configuration option to auto highlight files that are named APKBUILD.

I'm not all against renaming them. But syntax highlighting is not a
good reason for that, IMHO.

- Timo

---

---

From: Natanael Copa <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 16:00:39 +0100

> by abuild, so I'd rather not have it .sh extension. Otherwise it's

ok. yes. i was thinking that they are shell include files. Sometimes you
find php include files called .php. but yes... will most likely confuse.

> and can give syntax highlighting with those. 

this is actually pretty cool, but im not really sure how to implement
that without writing a small C wrapper.

I think it is simpler to source them like we do today.

> Or add an editor specific

Carlo found some fancy vim line that would turn on syntax highlight so
that part is working now.

> good reason for that, IMHO.

How about rename them to ABUILD? shorter to type, better connection to
the 'abuild' script and package. Is it worth it at this stage?

-nc

---