- Aur-general - lists.archlinux.org

Java version to use
by Polarian 17 Sep '23

17 Sep '23

Hello, I have looked around for an answer to this, but I have yet to find one. I try to stay quite rigid to the Arch way of doing things, trying to use the latest version of all tools to build said codebase. I have just updated one of my packages to use the Arch Gradle version instead of the gradle version used by upstream, I have also recently migrated the same project to using the latest version of node as it is compatible. For more information about this migration, see: https://github.com/reposilite-playground/reposilite-aur/issues/17. So this brings up a new question, what Java version to build packages with? Older Java versions are supported, and compiling with older Java gives more backwards compatibility (new Java versions can use old bytecode, but old Java versions cant use new bytecode). Personally I am tipping towards building with the latest java version (jdk-openjdk), if the code provided by upstream compiles just fine for said version, shouldn't we promote using the latest versions instead of building with the "officially recommended" versions, this is Arch, the idea is to use the newest tools which are packaged is it not? I got a feeling people might complain not being able to use their old versions of Java with newer builds, but new Java versions have performance improvements, memory improvements, and just general improvements to allow the JVM to run better, so why not push for the latest version to get used? I know this breaks Java ideology, which is compile once run anywhere, but I say compile latest and have the best optimisations possible. I am interested to see what others think about this, as it is within the AUR I can trail this and see how it goes. Of course, if the project doesn't build with the latest version, use an older runtime, but why are we adding >=11, Java 11 is old now, and although it is LTS and the most common version, the performance difference between 11 and 20. I have found the following (I do not know how reliable said statistics is), but it should give a general idea of why I believe this is beneficial: https://www.optaplanner.org/blog/2021/09/15/HowMuchFasterIsJava17.html Please let me know what others think about this? It boils down to compatibility or performance, and I would go for performance, but my opinion is NOT all that matters :) Take care, -- Polarian GPG signature: 0770E5312238C760 Website: https://polarian.dev JID/XMPP: polarian(a)icebound.dev

1 0

How is this package even in AUR?
by GoldenKnightFly 17 Sep '23

17 Sep '23

Hello, how is the `bun-termux` package even in AUR? It's literally a package for Termux, not for Arch Linux. Take a look at the PKGBUILD: mv "${srcdir}/bun-linux-aarch64/bun" "${PREFIX}/bin/bun" It's literally pointing to Termux prefix which is `/data/data/com.termux/files/usr`.

5 7

Need advice on how to address possible conflict with former (no longer existing) AUR package
by Ildar Sagdejev 12 Sep '23

12 Sep '23

I published my first ever AUR package: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/polyglot-git As per the submission guidelines, I made sure that neither `polyglot` nor `polyglot-git` currently exist in any official repositories or the AUR. Upon publishing my package, I saw that it is listed as optionally required by four other AUR packages, including this one (due to listing `polyglot` as provided in the PKGBUILD): https://aur.archlinux.org/cgit/aur.git/tree/PKGBUILD?h=polyglot-winboard-git The package `polyglot` no longer exists, but its PKGBUILD is still available: https://aur.archlinux.org/cgit/aur.git/tree/PKGBUILD?h=polyglot As things stand, those four packages will automatically pull in the one I just published as a dependency for no good reason. I'm asking for advice as to which actions it would be most proper to take at this point.

4 4

Problems with AUR packager Xiota and motivewave
by Xavier Baez 06 Sep '23

06 Sep '23

The variable they recommended was build_id but that didn't create a clean makepkg --printsrcinfo > .SRCINFO Here are some of the comments, it's like https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/motivewave#comment-932313 https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/motivewave#comment-932245 https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/motivewave#comment-932340 https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/motivewave#comment-932245 https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/motivewave#comment-932340 Xiota also manages chaotic AUR, so he created an 'issue' where two packages wouldn't be able to exist, so he deleted motivewave and created motivewave-latest-bin Then I got re-uploaded, and within hours he re-deleted me again. He also blocked me from their Git. Then he moved again to AUR motivewave to team up and the comments started again. I would like to know what the rules are, today at Labor Day 3 AM the change requests arrive again, yesterday I had to leave church to come home and do more changes Test the package, was working. I don't want to be forced to use variables or have a permanent code reviewer. Be called incompetent or imply I am dumb and need help. This is in the git and shows how their suggestions actually broke the package. I created my custom variable but the nit picking has not continued. Calling a person non competent, rude, rude, rude. Especially when today the issue has been resolved. Here is how the package broke because code review. commit 1bceb28d1875deb4a303e6f13ee51e1ea86c0011 Author: Xavier Baez <xavierbaez(a)gmail.com> Date: Sun Sep 3 09:12:02 2023 -0700 changes suggested by muflone When .SRCINFO is automatically generated with makepkg the following changes happen in SRCINFO - source = motivewave-6.7.10.deb:: https://downloads.motivewave.com/builds/500/motivewave_.deb + source = motivewave-6.7.10.deb:: https://downloads.motivewave.com/builds/{}/motivewave{6.7.10}_amd64.deb diff --git a/.SRCINFO b/.SRCINFO index e82622d..1dd9db6 100644 --- a/.SRCINFO +++ b/.SRCINFO @@ -1,7 +1,7 @@ pkgbase = motivewave pkgdesc = Advanced trading and charting application. pkgver = 6.7.10 - pkgrel = 3 + pkgrel = 4 url = https://www.motivewave.com arch = x86_64 license = custom @@ -13,7 +13,7 @@ pkgbase = motivewave depends = xorg-xrandr provides = motivewave conflicts = motivewave-latest-bin - source = motivewave-6.7.10.deb:: https://downloads.motivewave.com/builds/500/motivewave_.deb + source = motivewave-6.7.10.deb:: https://downloads.motivewave.com/builds/{}/motivewave{6.7.10}_amd64.deb sha512sums = c97e3bb78236d6ef1ae8581e29b128e6ee512f8241617dbcab5989f3068bfa6bbe9b9c091bb09b238ea891f59e6c12ef13ceee079610f3fc95722c58c4769bb9 -- Regards Xavier

6 6

Re: Problems with AUR packager Xiota and motivewave
by Aaron Liu 05 Sep '23

05 Sep '23

AUR TUs are kinda busy and they don't delete things immediately. I'm not sure why they want you to remove the conflicts before it is deleted but that's not why xiota accused you of incompetence either. Also, please include aur-general in your replies. If your email client has a "reply to list" button use that; if not try using a "reply all" button. On 2023/9/4 18:53, Xavier Baez wrote: > I want to maintain the package. > motivewave-latest-bin was supposed to be deleted yesterday. > > If that package is removed then motivewave wouldn’t have any > conflicting packages. > > motivewave has motivewave-latest-bin listed as conflicts (which is > accurate) > > And motivewave-latest-bin has motivewave listed as conflicts (which is > accurate) > > So today Xiota accused me of incompetence, motivewave indeed conflicts > with motivewave-latest-bin. > > Not following Xiota commands step by step does not make me incompetent. > > Xiota claims the motivewave-latest-bin package will be deleted, but > only after I remove motivewave-latest-bin as a conflict. > > > I wonder what’s the interest in me removing motivewave-latest-bin > first, and why does he even cares about that. > > According to > https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/PKGBUILD#conflicts > > These packages are in conflict. > They have the exact same source. > > > On Mon, Sep 4, 2023 at 3:29 PM Aaron Liu <aaronliu0130(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > I don't see why you're that infuriated. xiota is indeed a bit > combative with language but save for removing `conflicts` their > suggestions all look good. Simply adding the "no same owner" > removes the need for all that find chmod and chown stuff and just > put the conflicting packing name under "conflicts", no need to > make a new variable. > > You can't accuse a suggestion of being wrong if you don't > implement it completely and you already did implement the dynamic > URL in the pkgbuild right; why are you still suggesting that > implementing it breaks the package? It already works albeit > suboptimally because the no-same-owner stuff hasn't been implemented. > > You do not have to maintain this package. Nobody is forcing you to > go back from church or a funeral. Your email seems like you're > nitpicking their admittingly combative language, and I don't see > any nitpicks in the line-by-line review. "Code review" has no > negative connotations. > > On 2023/9/4 15:20, Xavier Baez wrote: >> The variable they recommended was build_id >> but that didn't create a clean >> >> makepkg --printsrcinfo > .SRCINFO >> >> Here are some of the comments, it's like >> >> https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/motivewave#comment-932313 >> https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/motivewave#comment-932245 >> https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/motivewave#comment-932340 >> https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/motivewave#comment-932245 >> https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/motivewave#comment-932340 >> >> Xiota also manages chaotic AUR, so he created an 'issue' where >> two packages wouldn't be able to exist, so he deleted motivewave >> and created motivewave-latest-bin >> >> Then I got re-uploaded, and within hours he re-deleted me again. >> He also blocked me from their Git. >> >> Then he moved again to AUR motivewave to team up and the comments >> started again. >> >> I would like to know what the rules are, today at Labor Day 3 AM >> the change requests arrive again, yesterday I had to leave church >> to come home and do more changes Test the package, was working. >> I don't want to be forced to use variables or have a permanent >> code reviewer. >> Be called incompetent or imply I am dumb and need help. >> >> This is in the git and shows how their suggestions actually broke >> the package. >> I created my custom variable >> >> but the nit picking has not continued. >> >> Calling a person non competent, rude, rude, rude. >> Especially when today the issue has been resolved. >> >> Here is how the package broke because code review. >> >> commit 1bceb28d1875deb4a303e6f13ee51e1ea86c0011 >> Author: Xavier Baez <xavierbaez(a)gmail.com> >> Date: Sun Sep 3 09:12:02 2023 -0700 >> >> changes suggested by muflone >> >> When .SRCINFO is automatically generated with makepkg >> >> the following changes happen in SRCINFO >> - source = >> motivewave-6.7.10.deb::https://downloads.motivewave.com/builds/500/motivewa… >> + source = >> motivewave-6.7.10.deb::https://downloads.motivewave.com/builds/{}/motivewav… >> <https://downloads.motivewave.com/builds/%7B%7D/motivewave%7B6.7.10%7D_amd64…> >> >> diff --git a/.SRCINFO b/.SRCINFO >> index e82622d..1dd9db6 100644 >> --- a/.SRCINFO >> +++ b/.SRCINFO >> @@ -1,7 +1,7 @@ >> pkgbase = motivewave >> pkgdesc = Advanced trading and charting application. >> pkgver = 6.7.10 >> - pkgrel = 3 >> + pkgrel = 4 >> url = https://www.motivewave.com >> arch = x86_64 >> license = custom >> @@ -13,7 +13,7 @@ pkgbase = motivewave >> depends = xorg-xrandr >> provides = motivewave >> conflicts = motivewave-latest-bin >> - source = >> motivewave-6.7.10.deb::https://downloads.motivewave.com/builds/500/motivewa… >> + source = >> motivewave-6.7.10.deb::https://downloads.motivewave.com/builds/{}/motivewav… >> <https://downloads.motivewave.com/builds/%7B%7D/motivewave%7B6.7.10%7D_amd64…> >> sha512sums = >> c97e3bb78236d6ef1ae8581e29b128e6ee512f8241617dbcab5989f3068bfa6bbe9b9c091bb09b238ea891f59e6c12ef13ceee079610f3fc95722c58c4769bb9 >> >> >> -- >> Regards >> >> Xavier >> >>

1 0

Help with AUR
by Xavier Baez 05 Sep '23

05 Sep '23

Hello I would like the community to help and decide on what to do. I am the maintainer of motivewave There is a person that went and created a duplicate motivewave-latest-bin and went and publicly said I am incompetent and insinuated I was stupid. Even today, labor day, when I want to spend time with my 3 kids, I have to be on the computer basically doing code review. During the last 12 days, the package has 1) always compiled and built Now, I was recommended to make some changes source=("${pkgname}-${pkgver}.deb:: https://downloads.motivewave.com/builds/${build_id}/motivewave${pkgver}_amd… ") then: makepkg --printsrcinfo > .SRCINFO But that would break my package. I found a solution with a custom variable, but 1) The other package is not being deleted: motivewave-latest-bin 2) My package is being basically spammed. 3) I am call the spammer I would like the community to let me know if someone recommends you to add code, and the code doesn't work, then why is there a pushover from Xiota to orphan the package. I have also received threads to have my account suspended/deleted but I wake up today at 3:00 AM my phone is beeping again because the person that copied the package, Xiota, cannot stop. -- Regards Xavier

3 2

[PATCH][tu-bylaws] bylaw amendments: switch to gitlab merge requests
by Christian Heusel 04 Sep '23

04 Sep '23

Most of our worflows have moved from mailing lists and patches to merge requests on gitlab. Until now amending the TU Bylaws formally requires sending patches via mail which this amendment intends to replace with merge requests on the gitlab repository. Signed-off-by: Christian Heusel <christian(a)heusel.eu> --- tu-bylaws.adoc | 19 ++++--------------- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) diff --git a/tu-bylaws.adoc b/tu-bylaws.adoc index 376d909..70a8a27 100644 --- a/tu-bylaws.adoc +++ b/tu-bylaws.adoc @@ -170,21 +170,10 @@ These bylaws may be amended at any time. A TU must motion for an amendment by sending an announcement to https://mailman.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/aur-general[aur-general]. -The message must either contain, or have attached, a Git-formatted patch -against this document which accomplishes the suggested change. The patch should -be based on the master branch of the official -https://gitlab.archlinux.org/archlinux/tu-bylaws.git/[tu-bylaws repository] and should -be sent "inline" (i.e. using `git send-email`) so that other TUs can easily -comment on specific parts. The strings `[PATCH]` and `[tu-bylaws]` should be -included in the subject. `git send-email --annotate` can be used to edit a -patch before sending it to the mailing list. - -Sending multiple patches is generally discouraged and should only be done if no -more than one of the patches are subject for debate (the remaining patches -might be formatting changes or minor wording changes). If multiple patches are -sent as part of one proposal, a cover letter describing the changes must be -included. The `--cover-letter` option of `git send-email` can be used to -achieve this. +The message must contain a link to a merge reqest in the official +https://gitlab.archlinux.org/archlinux/tu-bylaws[tu-bylaws repository] and the +merge request description should contain a meaningful description and +motivation for the change. SVP is commenced at the time of the motion, with a discussion period of 5 days, a quorum of 75%, and a voting period of 7 days. -- 2.42.0

4 12

application as package maintainer - fabiscafe
by Fabian Bornschein 02 Sep '23

02 Sep '23

Hey everyone! My name is Fabian Bornschein, I'm an IT-service-technician from germany and I would like to join the group of package maintainers. Let's start with the lengthy and less exciting parts of my Linux journey. My first Arch installation took place around 2010. I believe it was due to the fact that the other Linux distribution wasn't functioning properly on my new laptop. A few months later, I switched to Kubuntu and stuck with it for several years. During that time, I was heavily involved in designing various components for KDE Plasma such as themes, icons, and more. Thanks to this work and some contributions[0], I was invited to become a founding member of the KDE Visual Design Group[1]. Unfortunately, I didn't contribute much during my time there before eventually moving on. So, around 2015/16-ish, I found my way back to Arch, just to jump ship yet again over to (oh no!) Manjaro. After some time, lots of talks and small contributions, I ended up as the go-to person for maintaining the Radeon+AMDGPU[2]/FGLRX[3] setup scripts. Later on, I took charge of all those setup scripts for open-source drivers through "mhwd". Another project that kept me busy was my re-do of Manjaro's Steam client[4]. In late 2017 or early 2018, I left Manjaro and returned to Arch. However, to this day, I'm still the creator and owner of the Manjaro (Community) Telegram group[5] :P Now that I'm back on Arch, I do help people on various platforms, such as Fedi/Mastodon, Matrix, and Telegram. You can find me using my 'fabiscafe' alias. In the last 2-3 years, I've been working on another project: FCGU. It's an Arch Linux repo for GNOME pre-releases[6]. I started it because testing GNOME pre-releases on Arch was tough, and the AUR wasn't suitable for something as big as GNOME. What began as a personal venture grew when others wanted to test it too. I reached out to find some people who wanted to provide mirrors, and now it's a thing! :) The PKGBUILDs are nowadays on Arch gitlab[7]. In my rare spare time, I try to relax, spend time with family, or simply be with friends. I enjoy Anime/Manga and, of course, a good cup of coffee \o/. So, what do I want to do for Arch? Essentially, it's pretty much the same as what I'm currently doing for FCGU. Jan Alexander Steffens (heftig) asked me (twice already, sorry about that) if I'm willing to help with GNOME in Arch and if I'd like to incorporate the FCGU work into gnome-unstable. I believe it would benefit everyone if Arch could provide official unstable releases of GNOME in a repository. On the flip side, this might also speed up the availability of new stable releases on Arch - and thus, potentially reduce user spam on Reddit. :D So, in a nutshell, I want to: - Offer GNOME unstable releases (beta, rc) in gnome-unstable - Assist in transitioning them to Arch once they become stable versions My sponsors are Jan Alexander Steffens (heftig) and Torsten Keßler (tpkessler). Many thanks to both of you! Now I hope the Manjaro stuff doesn't exclude me directly and thanks for reading all of this. :) Fabian Bornschein - fabiscafe [0] https://jgrulich.cz/2014/02/27/plasma-nm-is-finally-out/ [1] https://wheeldesign.blogspot.com/2014/01/the-visual-design-group-short-intr… [2] https://github.com/manjaro/mhwd-db/commit/2bc57fddcc081ded1d3d701b83f6e7029… [3] https://github.com/manjaro/packages-extra/commit/b867bd3c26f4f3672889d1deac… [4] https://github.com/manjaro/packages-community/pull/252 [5] https://t.me/Manjaro [6] https://codeberg.org/fabiscafe/fcgu [7] https://gitlab.archlinux.org/fabiscafe [aur] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/fabiscafe

5 8

Re: Waterfox G
by Aaron Liu 01 Sep '23

01 Sep '23

Oops, I've sent this to the arch-general mailing list instead! I meant to send this to aur-general, sorry. I guess forwarding it should be fine. On 9/1/23 15:15, Aaron Liu wrote: > Currently, there are 2 packages for the latest Waterfox "current": > waterfox-g-bin and waterfox-current-bin . > > My guess is as follows: This arose from Waterfox changing their > versions from "current" to "G", short for "generation". hawkeye116477, > the maintainer for the former package and former maintainer for the > latter package, decided to create a new package, waterfox-g-bin, for > later releases and keep waterfox-current-bin frozen at the last > release with "current". However, MarsSeed orphaned > waterfox-current-bin through [PRQ#42365] in June and Leo Izen claimed > it and updated it to the latest Waterfox G. > > The current situation is that Waterfox refers to "Waterfox G" as > simply "Waterfox" and both bin packages have the wrong name. What > should be done? > > Also, is it necessary to have both gtk3 and gtk2 as > dependencies? Looking at the PKGBUILDs the only difference between the > packages is waterfox-g-bin disables automatic updates + update > notifications and has the extra profile manager desktop action while > waterfox-current-bin has none of these and has the extra dependency > "nss" (is this necessary?) > > P.S.: I've Bcc'd everybody I've named in this email. I'm new to the > AUR, so tell me if that's not the right thing to do. >

1 0

Best Approach to Resolving AUR-based Dependencies When Testing with Devtools
by Sean Snell 29 Aug '23

29 Aug '23

Hello, I'd like to start testing my PKGBUILD work with devtools prior to pushing my work to the AUR however I rely on packages based in the AUR for dependencies and when I try to use *extra-x86_64-build* in the location of the PKGBUILD it works for a bit but then fails because it can't resolve the AUR-based dependency packages. That makes sense as it's replicating the local *makepkg -s* process, which would also fail if I didn't have those dependencies installed ahead of time. I normally accomplish this with yay <https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/yay> then build the PKGBUILD with *makepkg -s*. How do other AUR maintainers traditionally resolve their AUR-based dependencies when working with devtools? I'm not opposed to using yay with devtools if pulling in an AUR wrapper is appropriate; I'd just like to avoid having to manually install a bunch of dependencies by hand before I'm able to test if my PKGBUILD work is sound. Thanks!

4 3