January 2025 - Aur-general - lists.archlinux.org

PKGBUILD - /usr/local/share/man exists in filesystem (owned by filesystem)
by Klaus Tachtler 25 Jan '25

25 Jan '25

Hi, I am encountering a problem with the installation of an AUR package I have built. During the installation I get the following error message: error: failed to commit transaction (conflicting files) libtlsrpt-git: /usr/local/share/man exists in filesystem (owned by filesystem) Errors occurred, no packages were upgraded. The installation script attempts to execute the following command: /usr/bin/mkdir -p '/usr/local/share/man/man3' Is there a solution how I can solve the problem in the PKGBUILD? Thank you in advance! Klaus. -- --------------------------------------- e-Mail : klaus(a)tachtler.net Homepage: https://www.tachtler.net DokuWiki: https://dokuwiki.tachtler.net ---------------------------------------

3 4

AUR Updating
by Gonsolo 24 Jan '25

24 Jan '25

Hi! I have a question regarding https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Arch_User_Repository#Updating_packages. The package maintainer of https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/gdown commented "Please do not flag for rebuilds." and quoted above wiki entry. I flagged gdown because it failed for me. The reason was that it was installed for Python 3.12, and in the meantime Arch was upgraded to 3.13. Of course a simple rebuild fixed the issue for me. But, since I keep my system up to date with yay, a simple increase of pkgrel would have fixed the issue without me noticing. So here is the question: Wouldn't it be nice of the maintainer to just increase the pkgrel value to force a rebuild on update, even if it's not required? Or is there a deeper reason for the above paragraph? Thanks -- g

5 4

Are those android-$arch-$package packages allowed in AUR?
by digear466＠mailgw.com 18 Jan '25

18 Jan '25

Hello, With reference to [1], are those android-$arch-$package packages allowed in AUR? [2] > Packages in the AUR should be useful on Arch Linux, which is currently > an x86_64-only distribution. It seems that those packages are for Android (not useful on Arch), which may not meet the above requirement. Best regards, gnlrdrvo [1] https://lists.archlinux.org/archives/list/aur-general@lists.archlinux.org/m… [2] For examples, please refer to the packages listed in "Required by" section: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/android-configure?all_reqs=1#pkgreqs

8 12

Removal of coderobe as Package Maintainer due to inactivity
by gromit 16 Jan '25

16 Jan '25

Hi all, I'd like to start a ["Special Removal of an Inactive Package Maintainer"][0] for coderobe based on prolonged inactivity. coderobe has not executed any of the expected packaging or AUR maintenance duties for more than a year now. When I recently contacted all people who were inactive for a longer period of time I heard back from her saying that she wanted to get back to things and would welcome help from me. I told her that to please progress with the long open keyring ticket[1] within 4 weeks have since not seen any activity anymore. - I couldn't find any packaging activity for her in the state repo since 2022 - She did not do any AUR Moderation since 2018 - She is not active anymore on IRC or the Mailing lists Given these circumstances I'm requesting her to be removed as a Package Maintainer. If at some later point she has the time / resources to help out again she is of course welcome to join the project again! The discussion period for this proposal will last for three days, after which there will be a voting period of five days as outlined in the bylaws. Cheers, gromit [0]: https://package-maintainer-bylaws.aur.archlinux.org/#_special_removal_of_an… [1]: https://gitlab.archlinux.org/archlinux/archlinux-keyring/-/issues/271 [2]: https://lists.archlinux.org/archives/list/arch-tu@lists.archlinux.org/messa…

1 2

Re: About the intentionally duplicated package wechat-beta-bwrap and wechat-universal and unmaintained orginal package wechat-uos
by S Umple 03 Jan '25

03 Jan '25

> Hello, I'm 7Ji, maintainer of wechat-universal-bwrap[a] (wrongly typed as wechat-universal in Kimiblock's original mail), and co-maintainer of wechat-beta-bwrap[b]. leaeasy[c], the maintainer of -beta, is my friend. I think it's necessary for me to clear up some misunderstanding and introduce the current situation of wechat builds from Tencent that's released on the Uniontech OS (an officially backed variant of Deepin Linux) appstore front that all these `wechat` packages are trying to "borrow" from. From what I can tell weixin is for mainland China users while wechat is for everyone else. GDPR that kind of laws are at play here the data has to be separate.

2 1

AUR guideline on `Duplicate` packages, and Package Maintainers
by S Umple 02 Jan '25

02 Jan '25

Recently there's been a debacle about the wechat packaging in AUR. Essentially there were two competing packages wechat and wechat-bin [1] which are both popular. Package maintainer K(type user in AUR) of wechat took unbelievable measures to try to get rid of wechat-bin from AUR to begin with and was rebuked[6] by a PM A(type "Package Maintainer" in AUR). But eventually the same maintainer K succeeded when another PM M(type "Package Maintainer" in AUR) sided with him and took control of wechat-bin with a total revamp of the packaging. Package maintainer K's actions are bizarre, hostile and malicious overall. There's absolutely no reasonable explanation as to why K had to take over the control except for the guideline which is flawed. Plenty of users submitted their negative views[2] towards such takeover. And it's also my observation that PM M did not do due diligence on this matter and just arbitrarily made a decision suppressing users' voice in the meantime. The situation got worse under PM M's dealing with this matter that users feel ignored and betrayed that many **wrong** deletion requests[3] have been filed towards both wechat and wechat-bin, presumably by angry and frustrated users from both camps. The chilling effect can also be seen here[5] when the most upvoted wechat related package is discussing a backup plan in case the same thing happens to it and the possibility of retreating to github, when one PM dictates the course of action and there's no way to appeal. If we also look at the roles PMs play in this debacle, it also draws ire from K. K is not happy when his attempt was denied by PM A either. https://blog.kimiblock.top/2024/12/08/do-not-waste-time-on-aur/ https://blog.kimiblock.top/2024/08/23/aur-moderation/ The questions are: 1. Is there enough room for more than one packaging in AUR or does it have to favor the first package maintainer in system log?[1] What's wrong with choices letting vote/popularity work and users the freedom to choose? 2. What can we do about it when the package maintainer ignores legitimate technical issues and won't budge until after a PM steps in and orders such? [4] 3. What can we do about it when one PM takes over, calling shots and suppressing users' voices? Is there an appeal process? [1] wechat started on 6/30/2024 with an essentially nil placeholder commit. Actual and meaningful commits started on 11/5/2024 with nothing in between. https://aur.archlinux.org/cgit/aur.git/log/?h=wechat&ofs=50 wechat-bin started on 11/5/2024 https://aur.archlinux.org/cgit/aur.git/log/?h=wechat-bin As such wechat has a earlier start date in the system than wechat-bin. Yet if we look into the detail by no means can K claimed that his package arrived first in the repo. PM A expressed[6] his doubt towards K's legitimacy in his response to K's attempt. Quote "Claiming legitimacy over the other existing packages in a forced and unexpected manner like you're doing is not helpful." I'm a wechat-bin user and am sure it collected 50+ votes and not sure about wechat which currently also tallies 50 votes. That said, if anything, both packages have the support and deserve to stay instead of merging them in a haste. [2] Most comments can be found under packages' comment page https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/wechat-bin https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/wechat Select negative user comments towards K: ernest https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/wechat#comment-1004581 etoyz https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/wechat#comment-1004579 timefaker https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/wechat#comment-1004546 JoveYu https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/wechat#comment-1004540 envolution https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/wechat?O=30#comment-1003718 pr0m1x https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/wechat?O=40#comment-1003602 wszqkzqk https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/wechat?O=40#comment-1002784 Keep-Silence https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/wechat-bin#comment-1004718 JoveYu https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/wechat-bin#comment-1004832 duguyipiao https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/wechat-bin#comment-1004833 [3] https://lists.archlinux.org/archives/search?q=wechat&page=1&mlist=aur-reque… [4] After K's takeover, packaging quality took a dive and won't even launch properly. User provided feedback and K simply cited his deal with PM M to provide only vanilla packaging and won't budge, until M stepped in and ordered K to correct such and K complied. It's noticeable that PM M chose to ignore this important attitude detail that K has shown towards this package and simply summarized it as "Still only a minor issue (in the upstream desktop file) was reported and it was promptly fixed in less than one day." This kind of sweeping-it-under-the-rug approach is very much problematic and troublesome. This brings into question PM M's capability in fairly addressing inquiries. [5] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/wechat-universal-bwrap#comment-1004422 [6] PM A had this to say in rebuke to maintainer K, quote "This indeed is an inappropriate usage of the "replaces" array. This should be a "conflicts" array at best. As you know (since you started the related discussion on the ML), the "wechat packaging situation" in the AUR is a bit controversial and difficult to deal with. Claiming legitimacy over the other existing packages in a forced and unexpected manner like you're doing is not helpful. I switched the "replaces" array to a "conflicts" one, please do not switch it back and give time for the AUR staff to deal with the pending requests about wechat related packages. Thanks for your comprehension & collaboration." https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/wechat?O=50#comment-1001449

7 10

Toxic user activity on AUR and ArchWikiCN
by Kimiblock Moe 01 Jan '25

01 Jan '25

3 2