Talk:PKGBUILD

From ArchWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Naming for install scripts.

In Special:Diff/635969 recommendations for naming install scripts were removed on the grounds that "the PKGBUILD format doesn't mandate it", but no one ever said it does; the previous wording was "should", not "must". Furthermore, it's downright necessary to give some name specific to the pkgname in the case of split packages, which the previous description handily accommodated.

Maybe this should read e.g.

The basename of the .install script should be the same as the pkgname in order to distinguish between split packages.

Thoughts? -- Eschwartz (talk) 02:40, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't see a reason to suggest a name at all. Is there a reason to standardize it?
Scimmia (talk) 02:48, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
I don't get the split package use case. Each package_*() just specifies their own install file regardless of how it's named. -- nl6720 (talk) 14:36, 21 September 2020 (UTC)


It looks like install script is no longer functional and has been replaced with ALPS? https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=224873

-- Yiuin 10:58, 04 January 2020 (PST)

Not true at all. Hooks have taken over a lot of the boilerplate install scripts, moving the functionality to the package where it's actually needed, but that doesn't mean that install scripts aren't still used and fully functional for a wide variety of things.
Scimmia (talk) 19:04, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Oops, turns out I wasn't calling post_install from post_upgrade so it was skipping my post_install script. Sorry!
Yiuin (talk) 19:15, 4 January 2021 (UTC)