Talk:Creating packages

From ArchWiki
Revision as of 20:53, 6 February 2010 by Littlebear (talk | contribs) (Another name change!?)
Jump to navigation Jump to search


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.

I propose renaming this article to Creating PKGBUILDs or Creating Packages. Any other suggestions are welcome, as are arguments against a move.

-- 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)

Update 11-27-2009

Guys, if I'm going to see even more of this useless PKGBUILD variable reordering stuff, I'll go completely insane, submit my own standard of those to upstream (oh, that's right here! :) and put every wiki article on my watchlist containing the word "pkgname"... -.-


I think the title of this article is somewhat misleading: it discusses building packages from the abs tree, while using abs is not necessary to either build, install or remove packages. This fact mentioned in the article itself, but it doesn't make the title less confusing for those who are just starting to get familiarized with building packages in Arch. --Bhobbit 23:30, 24 November 2009 (EST)

Update: This article has been merged with other similar articles; Building Packages in Arch Linux#Setting up was rearranged and, hopefully, the article is now clearer about ABS. On the other hand, I think the title could still be improved - 'in Arch Linux' portion of the title seems redundant.--Bhobbit 00:54, 26 November 2009 (EST)
I agree to renaming the page; should be a simple matter to move to "Building Packages". -- pointone 12:16, 27 November 2009 (EST)
I like the idea too.
--Gen2ly 04:03, 29 November 2009 (EST)


I would suggest the "Additional guidelines" section be erased in favour of a link to Arch Packaging Standards.

Also, I suggest the "Submitting packages to the AUR" section be erased in favour of a link to AUR User Guidelines#Submitting Packages to UNSUPPORTED.

The goal being to reduce duplication of effort. Thoughts?

-- pointone 12:16, 27 November 2009 (EST)

I agree on both counts. Besides, both sections are not essential reading for vanilla package building. Section on namcap should also probably be merged with Namcap article and substituted with a link. --Bhobbit 01:49, 29 November 2009 (EST)