Feature request: --nocompile

LB06 · 2004-05-03 13:50:53

Hi all,

I was wondering if it is possible to add a --nocompile or --nobuild option to makepkg. With this option it will be possible to find out about ./configure options and to adapt PKGBUILD to my liking without having to track down & extract the sources manually.

This will give more freedom to the users who want to customise packages.

Xentac · 2004-05-03 19:56:20

^C doesn't work?

LB06 · 2004-05-04 05:57:45

Xentac wrote:

^C doesn't work?

Of course it does, but that is no more than a very ugly workaround imo

Xentac · 2004-05-04 07:40:54

Well, makepkg is a program to build packages... isn't it an ugly work around to make it a frontend to wget?

zezaz · 2004-05-04 11:36:36

Hi Xentac,

Xentac wrote:

Well, makepkg is a program to build packages... isn't it an ugly work around to make it a frontend to wget?

FreeBSD ports architects did not think so :

http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?quer … ormat=html

A build, or an install from sources, is conceived as iterative steps (fetch, depends, extract, patch, configure...). You may want to stop the process after one step. That could make it easier to fix a complex PKGBUILD, for example.

I do not intend to start a "X is better than archlinux because it has this shining feature" debate . Just to show that one can reasonably see it as a built-in feature.

I would just think that --fetch, or even --step fetch, would be more appealing that --nocompile.

apeiro · 2004-05-04 18:04:27

LB06 wrote:

Of course it does, but that is no more than a very ugly workaround imo

Well, depends on your take. imho, the SIGINT signal was designed for that very purpose, to interrupt the currently-running process. Might as well use what UNIX gave us, unless it's not working for someone.

LB06 · 2004-05-04 18:54:25

Maybe, but it certainly IS convenient. Why is there a -i option? It's also possible to do a pacman -U afterwards, right? Or why is there a -b or -s option? It's also possible to manually track deps and makepkg them. Why should a --nocompile option be included imo? Yes, for our own convenience.

No, I'm not going to write it myself, I'm just doing a suggestion.

sarah31 · 2004-05-05 03:48:30

um .... what a strange suggestion. if you are running makepkg you have the url to the source already so there is no need to track down source. i personally think it is a major kludge to use makepkg to find your compiling options. when i built packages or kernels i never used makepkg as a route to finding out the configure options. makepkg is for making packages which includes compiling most of the time ..... wget or other such utilities are for downloading source.

just imo of course

apeiro · 2004-05-06 02:48:17

LB06 wrote:

Maybe, but it certainly IS convenient. Why is there a -i option? It's also possible to do a pacman -U afterwards, right? Or why is there a -b or -s option? It's also possible to manually track deps and makepkg them. Why should a --nocompile option be included imo? Yes, for our own convenience.

True. The difference is that -i/-b/-s are there to faciliate the automation provided by makeworld, where a user may not be sitting at the PC to manually "pacman -U" each package that's built by makeworld. You would never be automatically configuring a PKGBUILD (not in my experience anyway), so we're somewhat guaranteed that a user will be sitting at the console, ready to hit ^C.

Arch Linux

#1 2004-05-03 13:50:53

Feature request: --nocompile

#2 2004-05-03 19:56:20

Re: Feature request: --nocompile

#3 2004-05-04 05:57:45

Re: Feature request: --nocompile

#4 2004-05-04 07:40:54

Re: Feature request: --nocompile

#5 2004-05-04 11:36:36

Re: Feature request: --nocompile

#6 2004-05-04 18:04:27

Re: Feature request: --nocompile

#7 2004-05-04 18:54:25

Re: Feature request: --nocompile

#8 2004-05-05 03:48:30

Re: Feature request: --nocompile

#9 2004-05-06 02:48:17

Re: Feature request: --nocompile

Board footer