Wow, that's a good introduction. Nice work, pointone. --Gen2ly 02:35, 30 November 2009 (EST)
Another name change!?
The last round of updates resulted in a significant merge of duplicate content and the renaming of this page to Building Packages. However, I'm worried this title may still cause confusion. I've always considered the act of "building" a package to be makepkg's domain; rather, this article describes how to create a PKGBUILD.
-- pointone 20:50, 22 December 2009 (EST)
- True; a title like that is more in tune with makepkg's functionality. Between the suggestions, I prefer Creating Packages over Creating PKGBUILDS, since it's more intuitive for people that don't know about archisms. pwd 04:08, 23 December 2009 (EST)
- I believe that the best is to rename it "Package Creation". The reasoning is that a person is trying to search for subjects having to do with software packages, so the first thing they look for is "package"; I know I did. After that, one can discuss the relative benefits of "build" or "create" as the root of the second word in the title. Further, there should probably be a "Software Installation" page to guide newbies into an understanding of package management. These steps will move the project to a goof-proof setup; always ideal. - KitchM 12:41, 6 February 2010 (EST)
- I concur, most new user like me are baffled at the PKGBUILD when searching for package creation. there should be symlink for "Package Creation" to the more technical "Creating PKGBUILDS".--Littlebear 15:53, 6 February 2010 (EST)
If I understand it, makepkg is a script file that uses the information in another script file entitled pkgbuild. Two questions: First, why do they have different emphasis in color and capitalization? Second, where do they come from? Are they included in base-devel? Can anyone help with that? Thanks all. - KitchM 00:30, 8 February 2010 (EST)
- Template:Codeline is a command; a Template:Filename is simply a file, and is sourced by makepkg; not executed. -- pointone 20:43, 10 February 2010 (EST)
- Not knowing what you mean by "sourced", am I correct to assume that the makepkg program (which is not a script, but a binary executable) uses the script file "pkgbuild" as a "source" for instructions and information? And if so, can that be explained in the article? - KitchM 01:50, 11 February 2010 (EST)
If base-devel includes fakeroot, then why is the command for installation listing the two parts (# pacman -S base-devel fakeroot). Don't you get both if you install the first? - KitchM 00:34, 8 February 2010 (EST)
- Good point. (Fixed!) -- pointone 20:40, 10 February 2010 (EST)
The article mentions makepkg quite a bit, but it fails to tell us how to find it. Does anyone know where it comes from? - KitchM 00:22, 11 February 2010 (EST)
- "makepkg" comes from "pacman", "pacman" is always installed. --Beroal 11:25, 17 November 2010 (EST)