[aur-general] kodi-devel-bin
Hi folks, It looks like to me that all kodi-devel packages are named wrong. For example kodi-devel-bin isn't binary package. Is there some way to force renaming it? Regards, Pasha
Hi Pasha,
It looks like to me that all kodi-devel packages are named wrong. For example kodi-devel-bin isn't binary package.
It looks like kodi-devel-bin is a subpackage of kodi-devel which contains kodi-x11 and kodi-xrandr, just like the kodi-bin package on [community] which is also a subpackage of kodi. So in this case, it's not a package with prebuilt binaries but just a conincidence that the package suffix is the same as what is being used for marking packages with prebuilt binaries.
Is there some way to force renaming it?
Regards, Pasha
Luca
On 8/10/19 8:04 AM, Luca Weiss via aur-general wrote:
Hi Pasha,
It looks like to me that all kodi-devel packages are named wrong. For example kodi-devel-bin isn't binary package.
It looks like kodi-devel-bin is a subpackage of kodi-devel which contains kodi-x11 and kodi-xrandr, just like the kodi-bin package on [community] which is also a subpackage of kodi. So in this case, it's not a package with prebuilt binaries but just a conincidence that the package suffix is the same as what is being used for marking packages with prebuilt binaries.
Incorrect. kodi-devel-bin is the -devel version of community/kodi-bin, which means that it should be named kodi-bin-devel. It's no different from taking, say, systemd & systemd-libs, and turning it into systemd-git and systemd-git-libs, which is also wrong... or would be, except that systemd-git is better maintained. :) ... This is aside for the fact that I find the name of the community package "kodi-bin" to be strange, since it seems to be the x11 analogue to "kodi-wayland". @Ike, I'm curious what made you choose to call it "kodi-bin" instead of what seems to me like the more descriptive and accurate "kodi-x11". Perhaps it might make sense to change the pkgname? -- Eli Schwartz Bug Wrangler and Trusted User
On 12/08/2019 20:18, Eli Schwartz wrote:
@Ike,
I'm curious what made you choose to call it "kodi-bin" instead of what seems to me like the more descriptive and accurate "kodi-x11". Perhaps it might make sense to change the pkgname?
kodi-bin was chosen to have kodi-x11 as the default, if all "bin" packages provide kodi-bin and kodi depends on "kodi-bin", by default there would be kodi-gdbm installed, which most people can't actually use. So by having kodi-bin as an actual package which holds kodi-x11 that is still most used, users of kodi-wayland or kodi-gdbm can install those alongside or alone to suit there needs.
On Sat, 2019-08-17 at 11:30 +0200, Ike Devolder via aur-general wrote:
On 12/08/2019 20:18, Eli Schwartz wrote:
@Ike,
I'm curious what made you choose to call it "kodi-bin" instead of what seems to me like the more descriptive and accurate "kodi-x11". Perhaps it might make sense to change the pkgname?
kodi-bin was chosen to have kodi-x11 as the default, if all "bin" packages provide kodi-bin and kodi depends on "kodi-bin", by default there would be kodi-gdbm installed, which most people can't actually What do you think about kodi-default-x11? Same hack, but looks prettier ☺
use. So by having kodi-bin as an actual package which holds kodi-x11 that is still most used, users of kodi-wayland or kodi-gdbm can install those alongside or alone to suit there needs.
On 17/08/2019 14:15, pavel.finkelshtein@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, 2019-08-17 at 11:30 +0200, Ike Devolder via aur-general wrote:
On 12/08/2019 20:18, Eli Schwartz wrote:
@Ike,
I'm curious what made you choose to call it "kodi-bin" instead of what seems to me like the more descriptive and accurate "kodi-x11". Perhaps it might make sense to change the pkgname?
kodi-bin was chosen to have kodi-x11 as the default, if all "bin" packages provide kodi-bin and kodi depends on "kodi-bin", by default there would be kodi-gdbm installed, which most people can't actually What do you think about kodi-default-x11? Same hack, but looks prettier ☺
I think I'll keep it like it is right now. The reason it is like this is sufficient to keep it like this. When a new major version of kodi is on its way I'll reconsider if some changes are needed.
use. So by having kodi-bin as an actual package which holds kodi-x11 that is still most used, users of kodi-wayland or kodi-gdbm can install those alongside or alone to suit there needs.
On 8/17/19 5:30 AM, Ike Devolder wrote:
On 12/08/2019 20:18, Eli Schwartz wrote:
@Ike,
I'm curious what made you choose to call it "kodi-bin" instead of what seems to me like the more descriptive and accurate "kodi-x11". Perhaps it might make sense to change the pkgname?
kodi-bin was chosen to have kodi-x11 as the default, if all "bin" packages provide kodi-bin and kodi depends on "kodi-bin", by default there would be kodi-gdbm installed, which most people can't actually use. So by having kodi-bin as an actual package which holds kodi-x11 that is still most used, users of kodi-wayland or kodi-gdbm can install those alongside or alone to suit there needs.
You mean, that they would be interactively requested to press "1", "2", or "3" -- and if they simply press enter without even reading the console, then they would get gbm. I guess your concern is that pacman doesn't have a mechanism for choosing which is the default provider when the user doesn't pay attention to pacman? But I don't see why we should care about such users. On the other hand, it seems like the current mechanism means that kodi's X11 executable will always be installed, and users won't even know that they have the option to install a wayland version. So in order to make it work only on X11 without requiring the user to pay attention to what they are installing, you made it... broken on not-X11? Given the precise nature of the tradeoffs, I recommend renaming the package to kodi-x11 so that users at least have a way to know why their package doesn't actually work because they dared to use wayland, then depending directly on kodi-x11 and not some provides. Then add kodi-wayland and kodi-gbm as optdepends so they know what to install instead if they need it. Alternatively, fix the Kodi page on the Arch Wiki to recommend installing the actual package "kodi-x11"/"kodi-gbm"/"kodi-wayland" instead of "kodi", which will *also* work fine, pull in kodi as a dependency and satisfy the kodi-bin dependency provider without requiring any sort of interactive prompt, and which is frankly a lot more intuitive. This would seem to solve the best of every world, without creating trick package names and unworking installs for people who just installed "kodi" and now have no idea why kodi "doesn't support wayland". -- Eli Schwartz Bug Wrangler and Trusted User
On 8/10/19 4:42 AM, Paul M. Finkelshteyn via aur-general wrote:
Hi folks,
It looks like to me that all kodi-devel packages are named wrong. For example kodi-devel-bin isn't binary package.
Is there some way to force renaming it?
Yes, the first step is to talk to the maintainer of the package. Have you left a comment on the AUR package details asking politely if they think it is a good idea to rename it, or did you first come to the mailing list asking if it can be "forced"? ... Nope, no comment on the package details. Please discuss this with the package maintainer, and hopefully it can be resolved amicably. :) -- Eli Schwartz Bug Wrangler and Trusted User
On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 14:09:00 -0400
Eli Schwartz via aur-general
On 8/10/19 4:42 AM, Paul M. Finkelshteyn via aur-general wrote:
Hi folks,
It looks like to me that all kodi-devel packages are named wrong. For example kodi-devel-bin isn't binary package.
Is there some way to force renaming it?
Yes, the first step is to talk to the maintainer of the package. Have you left a comment on the AUR package details asking politely if they think it is a good idea to rename it, or did you first come to the mailing list asking if it can be "forced"?
...
Nope, no comment on the package details.
Please discuss this with the package maintainer, and hopefully it can be resolved amicably. :)
Of course my comment in there! Here it is: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/kodi-devel-bin#comment-703544 Paul
On 8/12/19 2:48 PM, Paul Finkelshteyn wrote:
Of course my comment in there! Here it is: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/kodi-devel-bin#comment-703544
Ugh, I'm sorry and I completely apologize. I totally misread that comment and may have only registered the first half. Maybe you could provide a bit more explanation, highlight what I said here about kodi-devel-bin vs kodi-bin-devel? Then we can wait for the maintainer to respond (it's only been three days, so he might not have noticed yet), and play it by ear from there. -- Eli Schwartz Bug Wrangler and Trusted User
On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 14:54:09 -0400
Eli Schwartz via aur-general
On 8/12/19 2:48 PM, Paul Finkelshteyn wrote:
Of course my comment in there! Here it is: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/kodi-devel-bin#comment-703544
Ugh, I'm sorry and I completely apologize. I totally misread that comment and may have only registered the first half.
Maybe you could provide a bit more explanation, highlight what I said here about kodi-devel-bin vs kodi-bin-devel? Then we can wait for the maintainer to respond (it's only been three days, so he might not have noticed yet), and play it by ear from there.
Thank you for idea on better explaining my point! Here is the comment: https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/kodi-devel/#comment-703972 I don't really think that it will change anything but on the other hand I'm not absolutely sure that this naming will harm — hardly lots of users have time to compile such a big package more or less usually. For me it was just a matter of interest Paul
On 12.08.2019 21:54, Eli Schwartz via aur-general wrote:
On 8/12/19 2:48 PM, Paul Finkelshteyn wrote:
Of course my comment in there! Here it is: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/kodi-devel-bin#comment-703544 Ugh, I'm sorry and I completely apologize. I totally misread that comment and may have only registered the first half.
Maybe you could provide a bit more explanation, highlight what I said here about kodi-devel-bin vs kodi-bin-devel? Then we can wait for the maintainer to respond (it's only been three days, so he might not have noticed yet), and play it by ear from there. Well, now author asks for cite from official repos (which I don't have as -bin suffix doesn''t mean any sense for official repos).
participants (6)
-
Eli Schwartz
-
Ike Devolder
-
Luca Weiss
-
Paul Finkelshteyn
-
Paul M. Finkelshteyn
-
pavel.finkelshtein＠gmail.com