Hi, I'm the TU that recommended this. On 24.08.21 17:12, Mikhail f. Shiryaev via aur-general wrote:
Hello.
Today I tried to build ruby-rubocop [1] package and it's in a strange state. A lot of packages for the package are cross-dependent for the check, for example ruby-ruby-progressbar [2] and ruby-fuubar [3]. The proposal of how to solve it from Mario [4] is to skip the check() phase, see comment [5].
The same is valid for package ruby-rubocop-performance [6] that is dependency for rubocop check and requires it to be built
IMHO the state when the packages aren't able to be built by the simple AUR helper command like `yay -S ruby-rubocop` should be considered as room for improvement.
I'm not sure about this. The AUR was always a tricky environment. There is a fine line between proper packages with documented dependencies and tests or an easy way to install packages. The "easy" way is always to just install the gem artifact from rubygems.org within a PKGBUILD and ignore all dependencies/tests. This will just break on every ruby upgrade and you need to ensure somehow you've all dependencies. Sometimes it's the best to build stuff locally and maintain the related packages in a private repo or to patch the PKGBUILDs and ignore the deps. This was also done in a preparation to move the packages into community. We already have other strange depenency circles, like ruby-faraday-* has them.
If I'm wrong, please say so. But I'd like to have AUR packages in an easily installable state and not passing additional arguments like `--nocheck` for makepackage commands.
[1] - https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/ruby-rubocop [2] - https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/ruby-ruby-progressbar/ [3] - https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/ruby-fuubar/ [4] - https://aur.archlinux.org/account/supermario [5] - https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/ruby-rubocop-rspec/#comment-823420 [6] - https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/ruby-rubocop-performance/
Best regards, Mikhail f. Shiryaev
p.s. Mario, sorry for sending you two messages.