X-Original-To: alpine-devel@lists.alpinelinux.org Received: from mail-ua0-f176.google.com (mail-ua0-f176.google.com [209.85.217.176]) by lists.alpinelinux.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FF195C4EC6 for ; Mon, 26 Jun 2017 20:36:41 +0000 (GMT) Received: by mail-ua0-f176.google.com with SMTP id j53so7666930uaa.2 for ; Mon, 26 Jun 2017 13:36:41 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=wkpF2bK724jd+xlKYSmf5xXffUVxp5CXtt2wcp6Dx74=; b=HmhgwJZYV5na6DZ38HZmuz4ePdgjdyOdjcnrMX130J7ZDzaXZYUQ50gLxFd0v4zy41 UmXTWXD5a11RL3gmSwLm1gF0souDiKwAJj6EGoHyls7Oe1skE00A93nJD5L7/zJU9IwO HKdDYXcxqRTyTY8MyFpKJP7uaBvFxl4uD9s2eNQEhtPAqNIeJ5ImKifQHvVe8we36jGn VDm5FUAmAPqOuES1li0B9Rb6qhCIvsFjf2+alkdTIm4riF/laIQiaYOgkb7d8tQ9nP4B D9Xg/G65PsiqQ9sH0Dy/5Ud8lCQ/2WEQvI4mxLhoK/V7TziVLcppJDaYHj9PAYfnQ0bv IRYA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=wkpF2bK724jd+xlKYSmf5xXffUVxp5CXtt2wcp6Dx74=; b=BpV37QU2ltjonxucaKvD0h0U4SmXTeWpQJhtigo84E28TMTVgPZCW1tbT6da6v1qzA EesaRQkpQiXxUIqNZbky7+Y6KA1FII9lBesnUqoHqMbOsnK5WBVdTrjenqL+0L/kVfxL lpz4zbNyMcPii7DD9QOMTtrg4KfIfxjhUWQy2GXr9mF6luR/js8FPOMzZdEjdJhixt++ SE7p/mqaEnRCi9C45+NkwBG9m5u/bOln8Dlq1/ISLholKtQMFprvILSuLOc14G1Rp0g2 SDJIHPLI000Lt8KfQKTZTuCCpd934kzTdVYUaqkMLqvJ2E9iTFeRl27eMAOPBX80f3EN Wx4w== X-Gm-Message-State: AKS2vOwmyGbuAIYJweoHF0ycfFYkHYkLqk3/C0F2qIwmq1Vwcw634RSB gVos4JQqtqtVmjLoKm75qC5B9B3sow== X-Received: by 10.176.24.172 with SMTP id t44mr1206619uag.16.1498509401253; Mon, 26 Jun 2017 13:36:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Mailinglist: alpine-devel Precedence: list List-Id: Alpine Development List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.176.93.225 with HTTP; Mon, 26 Jun 2017 13:36:40 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <0MDyRt-1dXXSg1Hrj-00HMcl@mail.gmx.com> References: <0MDyRt-1dXXSg1Hrj-00HMcl@mail.gmx.com> From: Dan Anderson Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2017 16:36:40 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [alpine-devel] abuild vs. makepkg To: 7heo <7heo@mail.com> Cc: alpine-devel@lists.alpinelinux.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f40304379b888ded180552e2e895" --f40304379b888ded180552e2e895 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" 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 > 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 > 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 --f40304379b888ded180552e2e895 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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 str= aight.

On Mo= n, Jun 26, 2017 at 4:07 PM, 7heo <7heo@mail.com> wrote:
On Jun 26, 2017 9:49 PM, Dan And= erson <dan.hillier.and= erson@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks for your reply 7heo. I knew makepkg used bash to invoke the ins= tall 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 for= mats, the packaging description isn't particularly system-dependent, es= pecially when the setup and installation are being deferred to shell script= s (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 s= ystem, 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 ti= me. However, I'm curious about the design of abuild: the APKBUILD forma= t is (nearly) a direct clone of Arch's MAKEPKG, but with small incompat= ibilities.=C2=A0
>> >
>> > 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 arc= h, 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 ma= nifests 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 goin= g to reduce much friction. That's why not both. If we wanted arch, we&#= 39;d be using arch, and Alpine wouldn't exist.

7heo

--f40304379b888ded180552e2e895-- --- Unsubscribe: alpine-devel+unsubscribe@lists.alpinelinux.org Help: alpine-devel+help@lists.alpinelinux.org ---