On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 4:23 PM, Mauro Santos via arch-general < arch-general@archlinux.org> wrote:
Hmm,
so Archlinux has packer[0] that provides an executable named `packer` and now there is packer-io[1] that changes the upstream executable from `packer` to `packer-io`.
Now i have a Makefile that runs packer-io[1] that fails on systems where its executable is not renamed to `packer-io`. (eg. everything[2] else
On 23-06-2016 15:04, Andre "Osku" Schmidt via arch-general wrote: than
Archlinux)
I would like to provide the user a single command to build "my" software (eg. make), but am not sure what i should do.
1. Tell Archlinux users to manually alias/link `packer` pointing to `packer-io`? 2. Automagically try to findout the correct executable in Makefile? 3. Request a rename of packer[0] executable upstream? 4. Request a rename of packer-io[1] executable upstream?
What would you do?
Cheers .andre
[0] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/packer/ [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/packer-io/ [2] at least Debian and MS-Windows
Packer and packer-io, at first glance, seem to be different projects. Even if they aren't different projects, both packages are in the AUR and therefore unsupported.
As far as I know the only officially supported way of building and installing packages on Arch Linux is using makepkg and pacman.
yeah, those are two different projects with the same (upstream) executable name. packer : aur helper for pacman. packer-io : build tool for vagrant boxes. hmm, hang on. when archlinux never allow aur helpers in repo, only packer-io could land in archlinux repos. ergo its executable doesn't need to (officially) be renamed from `packer` to `packer-io`. :P i can live with that :D cheers .andre