Hi,
I would like to run some kind of continuous integration of my AUR
packages. The goal is to know when a package I maintain fails to build
because either:
1/ its dependencies have been updated (new API, new incompatible version
of GCC, ...)
2/ for -git packages, changes made upstream broke something (new
dependency needed, new build system...)
The scripts in devtools [1] look like they should work just fine to
automate these kind of builds. After all, they are used to build the
official Archlinux packages.
However, I found that the build scripts do not really handle dependencies.
When building a given package, they just install deps and makedeps from
the existing Archlinux repositories. This is an issue when AUR packages
depend on each other, because then dependencies cannot be installed from
the Archlinux repositories...
It *is* possible to manually pass packages to install in the chroot before
building, but this is far from convenient. For instance, ring-daemon
depends on opendht, so I would need to do this:
cd opendht
extra-x86_64-build
cd ../ring-daemon
extra-x86_64-build -- -I ../opendht/opendht-0.5.1-1-x86_64.pkg.tar.xz
When there are multiple dependencies, it quickly becomes a nightmare to
automate (especially because dependencies need to be passed in the right
order).
Is there any script that automates dependency handling when building?
Basically, it would probably need to perform a topological sort, build
packages in this order, and push them to a local repository to be able to
build later packages.
Or did I take the wrong approach entirely?
Thanks,
Baptiste
[1] https://projects.archlinux.org/devtools.git/
PS : Some existing efforts I found about CI with Arch:
- https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/2014-November/026757.…https://jenkins.arch-ci.org/
No script provided, site appears to be down
- http://openbuildservice.org/2012/09/10/arch-linux-support/
Source code is unreadable (enormous Perl scripts, no modularity)
=== Signoff report for [community-testing] ===
https://www.archlinux.org/packages/signoffs/
There are currently:
* 1 new package in last 24 hours
* 0 known bad packages
* 0 packages not accepting signoffs
* 0 fully signed off packages
* 8 packages missing signoffs
* 4 packages older than 14 days
(Note: the word 'package' as used here refers to packages as grouped by
pkgbase, architecture, and repository; e.g., one PKGBUILD produces one
package per architecture, even if it is a split package.)
== New packages in [community-testing] in last 24 hours (1 total) ==
* python-hypothesis-3.0.0-1 (any)
== Incomplete signoffs for [community] (8 total) ==
* pdfsam-3.0.1-1 (any)
0/2 signoffs
* python-hypothesis-3.0.0-1 (any)
0/2 signoffs
* gdal-2.0.1-7 (i686)
0/1 signoffs
* jack2-1.9.10-4 (i686)
0/1 signoffs
* postgis-2.2.1-2 (i686)
0/1 signoffs
* gdal-2.0.1-7 (x86_64)
0/2 signoffs
* jack2-1.9.10-4 (x86_64)
0/2 signoffs
* postgis-2.2.1-2 (x86_64)
0/2 signoffs
== All packages in [community-testing] for more than 14 days (4 total) ==
* postgis-2.2.1-2 (i686), since 2016-01-22
* postgis-2.2.1-2 (x86_64), since 2016-01-22
* gdal-2.0.1-7 (i686), since 2016-01-23
* gdal-2.0.1-7 (x86_64), since 2016-01-23
== Top five in signoffs in last 24 hours ==
1. djgera - 2 signoffs
Hi,
is there a way to stop the misuse of AUR comments?
It's ok if somebody is mistaken, this could happen, but if a group
continues to insist to spread something wrong, that was explained to be
wrong, it becomes a misuse of the comments.
I wish to read informative comments and don't want to read one wrong
assumption after the other.
https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/yaourt/
Yaourt is up-to-date:
[rocketmouse@archlinux yaourt]$ date;git pull --all && git describe
Wed Feb 10 12:18:07 CET 2016
Fetching origin
Already up-to-date.
1.7-109-g56818c0
[rocketmouse@archlinux yaourt]$ pacman -Q yaourt;pacman -Qi yaourt|grep Bu;pacman -Qi package-query|grep Bu
yaourt 1.7-1
Build Date : Tue 06 Oct 2015 01:26:59 AM CEST
Build Date : Tue 02 Feb 2016 03:32:25 PM CET
There was only the need to rebuild package-query against a new lib.
Regards,
Ralf
Dear aurweb contributors and users,
We are pleased to announce aurweb 4.2.0. The official aurweb setup [1]
has already been upgraded.
Even though this is only a minor release, the list of new features is
longer than usual, which is mostly because we started working on various
different requests that have been lying around for a long time. I
divided the changes into four categories:
* Package Handling: Providers from the official repositories are now
recognized and broken dependencies are highlighted in the web
interface (note that this particular feature already went live [1] a
while ago, even though it was not part of any official release yet).
As an alternative to using the web interface, it is possible to change
package base keywords via SSH (check `ssh aur(a)aur.archlinux.org help`
for details) and we switched to python-srcinfo for parsing package
metadata (thanks to Johannes Löthberg for starting this project and
for providing aurweb patches).
* Notifications: Users are now notified when they are added to (resp.
removed from) the co-maintainer list of a repository. You can
optionally subscribe to package update notifications from the new
notification settings area on the account edit page.
* Comments: Package base comments can be pinned (thanks to Mark Weiman
for implementing this) and Trusted Users as well as developers can
undelete comments that were removed earlier (thanks to Marcel Korpel).
* RPC: There was a complete overhaul of the RPC interface (now at v5).
The documentation can be found at [2].
For a comprehensive list of changes, please consult the Git log [3]. As
usual, bugs should be reported to the aurweb bug tracker [4].
[1] https://aur.archlinux.org/
[2] https://aur.archlinux.org/rpc/
[3] https://projects.archlinux.org/aurweb.git/log/?id=v4.2.0
[4] https://bugs.archlinux.org/index.php?project=2
=== Signoff report for [community-testing] ===
https://www.archlinux.org/packages/signoffs/
There are currently:
* 1 new package in last 24 hours
* 0 known bad packages
* 0 packages not accepting signoffs
* 2 fully signed off packages
* 13 packages missing signoffs
* 4 packages older than 14 days
(Note: the word 'package' as used here refers to packages as grouped by
pkgbase, architecture, and repository; e.g., one PKGBUILD produces one
package per architecture, even if it is a split package.)
== New packages in [community-testing] in last 24 hours (1 total) ==
* pdfsam-3.0.1-1 (any)
== Incomplete signoffs for [community] (13 total) ==
* pdfsam-3.0.1-1 (any)
0/2 signoffs
* android-tools-6.0.1_r16-1 (i686)
0/1 signoffs
* gdal-2.0.1-7 (i686)
0/1 signoffs
* jack2-1.9.10-4 (i686)
0/1 signoffs
* postgis-2.2.1-2 (i686)
0/1 signoffs
* rawstudio-2.0_git20160107-2 (i686)
0/1 signoffs
* android-tools-6.0.1_r16-1 (x86_64)
0/2 signoffs
* darktable-1:2.0.1-1 (x86_64)
1/2 signoffs
* gdal-2.0.1-7 (x86_64)
0/2 signoffs
* gimp-ufraw-0.22-5 (x86_64)
1/2 signoffs
* jack2-1.9.10-4 (x86_64)
0/2 signoffs
* postgis-2.2.1-2 (x86_64)
0/2 signoffs
* rawstudio-2.0_git20160107-2 (x86_64)
0/2 signoffs
== Completed signoffs (2 total) ==
* darktable-1:2.0.1-1 (i686)
* gimp-ufraw-0.22-5 (i686)
== All packages in [community-testing] for more than 14 days (4 total) ==
* postgis-2.2.1-2 (i686), since 2016-01-22
* postgis-2.2.1-2 (x86_64), since 2016-01-22
* gdal-2.0.1-7 (i686), since 2016-01-23
* gdal-2.0.1-7 (x86_64), since 2016-01-23
== Top five in signoffs in last 24 hours ==
=== Signoff report for [community-testing] ===
https://www.archlinux.org/packages/signoffs/
There are currently:
* 0 new packages in last 24 hours
* 0 known bad packages
* 0 packages not accepting signoffs
* 2 fully signed off packages
* 12 packages missing signoffs
* 4 packages older than 14 days
(Note: the word 'package' as used here refers to packages as grouped by
pkgbase, architecture, and repository; e.g., one PKGBUILD produces one
package per architecture, even if it is a split package.)
== Incomplete signoffs for [community] (12 total) ==
* android-tools-6.0.1_r16-1 (i686)
0/1 signoffs
* gdal-2.0.1-7 (i686)
0/1 signoffs
* jack2-1.9.10-4 (i686)
0/1 signoffs
* postgis-2.2.1-2 (i686)
0/1 signoffs
* rawstudio-2.0_git20160107-2 (i686)
0/1 signoffs
* android-tools-6.0.1_r16-1 (x86_64)
0/2 signoffs
* darktable-1:2.0.1-1 (x86_64)
1/2 signoffs
* gdal-2.0.1-7 (x86_64)
0/2 signoffs
* gimp-ufraw-0.22-5 (x86_64)
1/2 signoffs
* jack2-1.9.10-4 (x86_64)
0/2 signoffs
* postgis-2.2.1-2 (x86_64)
0/2 signoffs
* rawstudio-2.0_git20160107-2 (x86_64)
0/2 signoffs
== Completed signoffs (2 total) ==
* darktable-1:2.0.1-1 (i686)
* gimp-ufraw-0.22-5 (i686)
== All packages in [community-testing] for more than 14 days (4 total) ==
* postgis-2.2.1-2 (i686), since 2016-01-22
* postgis-2.2.1-2 (x86_64), since 2016-01-22
* gdal-2.0.1-7 (i686), since 2016-01-23
* gdal-2.0.1-7 (x86_64), since 2016-01-23
== Top five in signoffs in last 24 hours ==
1. bisson - 4 signoffs
2. eworm - 2 signoffs
3. djgera - 2 signoffs
4. jlichtblau - 2 signoffs
5. fyan - 2 signoffs
TL;DR: We need to start denouncing and culling sociopathic behavior
in the AUR and other parts of the Arch Linux community at large.
The thread "Misuse of AUR (yaourt) comments" brings to light in the
words of Dave Blair:
> Det harassed me with out-of-date notifications too. He seems like a
> hustler. Not quite sure why anyone would want to hustle AUR packages,
> doesn't really make sense to me.
answering among previews emails in the conversation to what Ralf Maddorf
said:
> Reading Det's comments again, it's possible that I misunderstood those
> comments. However, maybe Skunnyk is sick of unflagging the package two
> times a day. I doubt that Skunnyk is "inactive", my guess is, that it
> makes no sense to unflag the package again and again.
To this I barged in and wrote:
> No Ralf, you did not misunderstand Det. The guy is a Finnish
> sociopath hiding behind pseudonyms, that harasses people to grab
> their popular packages in AUR. I gave him the vuze package to shut
> him up. If you don't believe me check how many packages he maintains.
> In AUR3 he used to have more than 600.
AS an aside, William Di Luigi wrote:
> These are ad-hominem attacks, I think this thread is being hijacked.
And I answered:
>
> No, I am not hijacking the thread. I am simply confirming Dave Balir
> and Ralph Maddorf's suspicions that they are dealing with a sick individual.
>
> And if you think I am throwing ad-hominem attacks is because you
> havenot receivied insulting emails from Det to your private mailbox.
> And, as I said, he uses pseudonyms to do his sociopathic deeds, for
> example nimetonmail(a)gmail.com that now nymshifted
> to nimetonmaili(a)gmail.com.
>
> Just give me a moment and I'll open a new thread.
(Precisely this new thread)
Now, in support to my assertions there are these answers:
Ralph Maddorf:
> In AUR 4
> https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/?O=0&SeB=m&K=Det&outdated=&SB=n&SO=a&PP=…
>
> Maintainer Det: 105 packages found.
> Submitter Det: 63 packages found.
Dave Blair:
> I'm glad it's not just me then.
>
> But why would anyone want to hustle AUR packages? I don't get it.
> There are loads of orphans around, and maintaining a package can be a
> pain. It's not like you can make a living off it.
Now, after this long summary there is but one matter: This kind of
behavior has to be stopped in its tracks. I gave a fair fight, part of
which David Reisner had news as seen in
<https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/42481>, but that was just the start of
it. The harassment made me give "Det" the vuze package in a fit of
disgust and rage (my fault, I know).
Now, what do I know about this "Det" character? He is Finnish, because
one of the Gmail email addresses he used to harass and insult me had a
Google+ page with all text in Finnish (very immature content, btw). I
can't find that page anymore, probably he deleted it, there is also
nimetonmaili(a)gmail.com, where he identifies as "Daniel Davis"; he had
the gall of gloating it is not his real name. So we can have an idea of
what kind of sociopath is this individual.
I let this pass for a long time, but I think it is the right time to ask
the TUs *and* the devs to start a productive discussion about creating a
code of conduct that allows us, the users contributing to the AUR, the
forum and the IRC channels, to have a set of rules to be applied if
people is disrespect to each other in the context of the community. Case
in point, a long while ago, I witnessed some of the IRC channel regulars
harass a girl in such a way that I thought the main harasser should be
asked if he had ever been kissed. And we wonder why there are no women
involved in Arch Linux, at least that I be aware of.
I am sure that like Bill and Ted, we all want to be excellent to each
other, but unfortunately the times are such that most idolize being
violent and abusive to each other. We can't stop the decay of our
civilization but we certainly can try to stop it in the Arch community.
--
Pedro A. López-Valencia
http://about.me/palopezv/
Recession is when a neighbor loses his job. Depression is when you lose
yours. -Ronald Reagan