On Tue, 24 Aug 2021, at 15:12, 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.
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.
There's not really much that can be done to work around this, since the dependency also exists upstream. Potentially, AUR helpers can detect these scenarios and do a first pass with `--nocheck`, and then a second rebuild. Note that this isn't the only instance of a circular dependency like this. Another known similar situation is rust, which requires rust to be built [1]. Again,the package only reflects upstream's situation. BTW: You might also be interested in quarry[2]. [1]: https://archlinux.org/packages/extra/x86_64/rust/ [2]: https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Ruby#Quarry -- Hugo Osvaldo Barrera