The official distribution is the RPM/DEB/binary distribution. The ruby-vagrant package is different - I don't believe it is based on vagrant-installers. If we wanted to not use the RPMs (which are very self-contained) but still have a low-maintenance way of packaging this, we could start here: https://github.com/mitchellh/vagrant-installers Ido On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 12:59 PM, Anatol Pomozov wrote:

Hi

On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 9:51 AM, Ido Rosen wrote:

...

Hi,

I maintain vagrant package in AUR. I believe vagrant is a very useful tool for ArchLinux users. I am happy to continue maintaining it in AUR; however, for the good of the community, it would be great if one of you TUs could move vagrant into [community] as soon as possible so it could get wider exposure. It currently has ~147 votes. Releases are infrequent, so it has been very easy to maintain overall.

AUR package: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/vagrant/ Upstream distribution website: http://www.vagrantup.com/

Also, if you'd like to make changes to the PKGBUILD in AUR, you can submit a pull request on GitHub: https://github.com/ido/packages-archlinux (under the aur/vagrant directory).

I see that it uses *.rpm file as a source. Does this project have source repo?

Is ruby-vagrant aur package (built from sources) the same as your package?

On Fri 21 Feb 2014 at 19:34, Jonathan Steel wrote:

On Fri 21 Feb 2014 at 12:51, Ido Rosen wrote:

...

Hi,

I maintain vagrant package in AUR. I believe vagrant is a very useful tool for ArchLinux users. I am happy to continue maintaining it in AUR; however, for the good of the community, it would be great if one of you TUs could move vagrant into [community] as soon as possible so it could get wider exposure. It currently has ~147 votes. Releases are infrequent, so it has been very easy to maintain overall.

AUR package: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/vagrant/ Upstream distribution website: http://www.vagrantup.com/ [...]

I use this a bit and was considering moving it to community when I had a bit more time. If no one steps up in the next week or so then I'll start looking at moving it/the best way to package it.

Vagrant has been updated in the AUR using my proposed installation method (not using the rpm file). This means needing 22 ruby-* packages. Please share comments/suggestions/concerns either here or in the comments: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/vagrant/ I plan to move it to [community] along with dependencies by the end of the week, unless concerns/issues arise. Thanks, -- Jonathan Steel

On Tue 11 Mar 2014 at 19:48, Jonathan Steel wrote:

On Fri 21 Feb 2014 at 19:34, Jonathan Steel wrote:

...

On Fri 21 Feb 2014 at 12:51, Ido Rosen wrote:

...

Hi,

I maintain vagrant package in AUR. I believe vagrant is a very useful tool for ArchLinux users. I am happy to continue maintaining it in AUR; however, for the good of the community, it would be great if one of you TUs could move vagrant into [community] as soon as possible so it could get wider exposure. It currently has ~147 votes. Releases are infrequent, so it has been very easy to maintain overall.

AUR package: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/vagrant/ Upstream distribution website: http://www.vagrantup.com/ [...]

I use this a bit and was considering moving it to community when I had a bit more time. If no one steps up in the next week or so then I'll start looking at moving it/the best way to package it.

Vagrant has been updated in the AUR using my proposed installation method (not using the rpm file). This means needing 22 ruby-* packages.

Please share comments/suggestions/concerns either here or in the comments:

https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/vagrant/

I plan to move it to [community] along with dependencies by the end of the week, unless concerns/issues arise.

The gem-based install did have issues. With help from a few users a version that uses vagrant-installers is now available. This does not have the 22 ruby-* dependencies but it is now a large self-contained package in /opt/, much like the rpm version was. I plan to move this to [community] in a day or two assuming no further issues are reported. -- Jonathan Steel

On Wed 19 Mar 2014 at 21:45, Jonathan Steel wrote:

On Mon 17 Mar 2014 at 20:00, Jonathan Steel wrote:

...

On Tue 11 Mar 2014 at 19:48, Jonathan Steel wrote: [...] I plan to move this to [community] in a day or two assuming no further issues are reported.

It has come to my attention that two plugins are included in vagrant that don't fall under the MIT license. These are vagrant-login and vagrant-share. Here is the license for those:

https://gist.github.com/mitchellh/c070cf243b94036bb291

Are there any objections to providing these proprietary plugins with this license?

I've decided to remove these plugins in 1.5.1-5. Users can install them with: % vagrant plugin install vagrant-login % vagrant plugin install vagrant-share ... and functionality will be restored, without having to distribute proprietary software, and this license. The plugins will then be stored in ~/.vagrant.d/gems/gems/ (so will be user-specific) and are not fetched from our servers. I think this is the best solution for those wanting to use these plugins. -- Jonathan Steel