Hi,

Disowned both of them. They're all yours.

I found https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_User_Repository#Maintaining_packag... "If you maintain a package and want to update the PKGBUILD for your package just resubmit it." But https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Creating_Packages assumes i am an Archlinux user. I am not. Looks like i am stuck here. "Please do not just submit and forget about packages!" Actually that's my plan. After the change, it shall just stay as it is and point to libisoburn. Anybody willing to step in and to implement it ? Reminder of plan: Make package "xorriso" empty and depending on "libisoburn". Make "xorriso-tcltk" empty and depending on "libisoburn", "tcl", "Tk">=8.4, and "bwidget". Have a nice day :) Thomas

On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 01:24:39PM +0200, Thomas Schmitt wrote:

[...] Make package "xorriso" empty and depending on "libisoburn".

Make "xorriso-tcltk" empty and depending on "libisoburn", "tcl", "Tk">=8.4, and "bwidget"

Reasoning:

That would put all future maintainance effort on the archlinux package "libisoburn". If "xorriso" would be removed, i assume that soon some user of grub-mkrescue would ask for such a package.

I see all needed files in https://www.archlinux.org/packages/extra/i686/libisoburn/files/ Only the dependency on Tcl/Tk/Bwidget is missing (and inappropriate for a library).

Is this possible at all ? Would a Trusted User be willing to teach me how to achieve it ?

Why don't we simply drop xorriso and xorriso-tcltk from the AUR and add Tcl/Tk/BWidget optdepends to libisoburn? Maybe also add both xorriso and xorriso-tcltk as provides. Sounds like the right thing to do to me.

Have a nice day :)

Thomas

On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 02:03:29PM +0200, Thomas Schmitt wrote:

Hi,

Lukas Fleischer wrote:

...

Why don't we simply drop xorriso and xorriso-tcltk from the AUR

I suspect that the AUR package was requested by some user of GRUB. If "xorriso" gets removed, then it might be requested again, and some friendly unaware person might re-introduce it.

By the same argument, you could say that we should keep completely broken and wrong packages on the AUR, because there is a chance someone will create the same broken package in the future again. The best thing we can do is drop this stuff and do our best to prevent it from happening again. There are even tools for automated detection of stuff that is duplicated in the AUR (see aurdupes [1]), so I do not think it is a big issue.

...

and add Tcl/Tk/BWidget optdepends to libisoburn ? Maybe also add both xorriso and xorriso-tcltk as provides.

Maybe the words "optdepends" and "provides" invalidate my qualms. Dunno ... You are the experts. Tell me if you expect me to do something particular.

The provides directive makes sure that people can put something like depends=('xorriso') in their PKGBUILDs and it will automatically use libisoburn instead -- basically what you are trying to imitate with those empty meta packages. optdepends can be used for something like: optdepends=('tcl: for xorriso-tcltk') I think the combination of these is what we want, isn't it? You can check the PKGBUILD(5) man page for details. There is an online version at [2].

Background:

xorriso-tcltk is a wish script. It installs fine without wish, and bash tells properly what's missing when started: -bash: /usr/bin/xorriso-tcltk: wish: bad interpreter: No such file or directory

The dependency on Bwidget is optional and self-adjusting.

Have a nice day :)

Thomas

[1] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/aurdupes/ [2] https://www.archlinux.org/pacman/PKGBUILD.5.html

On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 03:01:56PM +0200, Thomas Schmitt wrote:

Hi,

Lukas Fleischer wrote:

...

The provides directive makes sure that people can put something like depends=('xorriso') in their PKGBUILDs and it will automatically use libisoburn instead --

Will this also help users who look for xorriso and do not expect to find it in a library package ?

Yes, pacman(8) will install libisoburn when trying to install xorriso.

...

optdepends=('tcl: for xorriso-tcltk') [...] I think the combination of these is what we want, isn't it?

It will at least be a sufficient improvement of the currently ill situation. I don't want to pollute your package space with inappropriate pseudo thingies.

So i agree with your proposal. Can you please implement it ? In any case: Thanks for caring.

No, I can't. It is in the [extra] repository, so you will need to ask a developer. The easiest (and best) way of doing this is filing a feature request on our bug tracker [1].

Have a nice day :)

Thomas

[1] https://bugs.archlinux.org/

On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 5:11 PM, Thomas Schmitt wrote: [...]

If the proposal is accepted and implemented, how to finally remove the AUR packages ?

By asking here as well, acording to [0]. cheers! mar77i [0] https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/AUR#Other_requests

Hi, The proposal to augment package "libisoburn" is in the bug tracker since a month. (See https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/36931 ) I am thankful towards the package maintainer of "libisoburn" for keeping it up to date. So i refrain from bothering him more. Now what to do about the two outdated and misleading AUR packages "xorriso" and "xorriso-tcltk" ? Throw them out without substitution ? Remove their "Sources" and rather make them depend on "libisoburn" instead ? Have a nice day :) Thomas