Hi,
six weeks ago, i asked for advise how to deal with the outdated AUR package of my program xorriso, which overwrites the executables of the properly maintained package https://www.archlinux.org/packages/?name=libisoburn
On advise of this list, i later posted comments to https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/xorriso/ https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/xorriso-tcltk/ which received no reply and did not cause any activity.
A month ago i wrote to the published mail address of the maintainer "dreieck". No reaction since then.
What can i do to instigate the resolution of this mess ? Meanwhile the AUR package "xorriso" overwrites the current "libisoburn" version xorriso-1.3.2 by a xorriso version, which is three releases and 8 months older. Between both releases there happened 13 bug fixes.
Have a nice day :)
Thomas
On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 10:47 AM, Thomas Schmitt scdbackup@gmx.net wrote: [...]
A month ago i wrote to the published mail address of the maintainer "dreieck". No reaction since then.
Technically, 2 weeks after writing the email you could have come here to ask for orphaning. That is still possible and a TU will gladly help you adopt this package.
cheers! mar77i
On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 11:54 AM, Martti Kühne mysatyre@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 10:47 AM, Thomas Schmitt scdbackup@gmx.net wrote: [...]
A month ago i wrote to the published mail address of the maintainer "dreieck". No reaction since then.
Technically, 2 weeks after writing the email you could have come here to ask for orphaning. That is still possible and a TU will gladly help you adopt this package.
cheers! mar77i
Disowned both of them. They're all yours.
Cheers,
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
Hi,
Martti Kühne wrote:
Technically, 2 weeks after writing the email you could have come here to ask for orphaning.
I wanted (and still want) to create a good relationship between the package maintainer and me as upstream. But vacation time is over now. So i assume she/he is busy with other things.
That is still possible and a TU will gladly help you adopt this package.
Seeking for an excuse that is as good as the one i used for not becomming Debian Maintainer of my software ...
How about this: In general, i try to be a neutral upstream. Not even Linux specific. Or: The effort to teach me is as big as the effort to make the change which i propose below.
But as said, i am mainly interested in good cooperation. Just tell me what i have to do. If it is needed to adopt the package and to learn AUR proceedings, then i will do.
----------------------------------------------------------- What i would try to achieve:
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 ?
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
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.
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.
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
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
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 ?
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.
Have a nice day :)
Thomas
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
Hi,
i wrote:
So i agree with your proposal. Can you please implement it ?
Lukas Fleischer wrote:
No, I can't. It is in the [extra] repository, so you will need to ask a developer.
It meanwhile came to me that these are two different organisations. I have already begun to write a mail to the maintainer.
The easiest (and best) way of doing this is filing a feature request on our bug tracker [1].
So my mail will turn into a feature request. I will quote you as the originator of the solution proposal.
If the proposal is accepted and implemented, how to finally remove the AUR packages ?
Have a nice day :)
Thomas
On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 5:11 PM, Thomas Schmitt scdbackup@gmx.net 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
Hi,
i now filed task 36931 [1] on the bug tracker. If you see opportunities to improve it, then please do.
Many thanks for now to Lukas and Martti.
Have a nice day :)
Thomas
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
aur-general@lists.archlinux.org