Thanks for your reply! I would have another question, if the package is still not updated, will it be removed from the community repo? Luca Weiss ezt írta (időpont: 2021. febr. 27., Szo, 13:20):

On Samstag, 27. Februar 2021 12:52:13 CET Barnabás Béres via aur-general wrote:

...

Dear Arch users, I would like to know how I can submit a package (namely hugo) to the AUR that is already in the community repo. I would like to do this because I need the latest version of hugo for my work and the package in the community repo is out-of-date.

Thanks for your help in advance!

Best regards Barnabas Beres

See https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/AUR_submission_guidelines#Rules_of_subm...

...

The submitted PKGBUILDs must not build applications already in any of the official binary repositories under any circumstances.

Regards

On Sat, Feb 27, 2021 at 01:24:13PM +0100, AUR General Requests wrote:

Thanks for your reply! I would have another question, if the package is still not updated, will it be removed from the community repo?

- End of Quote - The package in [community] is one release behind, which came out just a week ago. It's also already flagged, so I suppose it _will_ be updated. On the other hand, why not just build it locally, and forego uploading it to the AUR ? _Cheers !_ Kriss -- PGP: 7A19 4E3F 7A8F 867B EA8A 5339 023F 0788 62AC FE50 https://keys.openpgp.org/vks/v1/by-keyid/023F078862ACFE50

On Sun, 28 Feb 2021 01:20:49 +0000, Jonathon Fernyhough wrote:

On 27/02/2021 12:42, Kr1ss via aur-general wrote:

...

On the other hand, why not just build it locally, and forego uploading it to the AUR ?

It's not even necessary to build it - download the single `hugo` binary from the project page and run it as-is.

It might be unnecessary to build "the single `hugo` binary", but it's sort of necessary to build a package, at least if you prefer a well-structured over a poorly structured Arch Linux install.

On Sun, 28 Feb 2021 14:44:57 +0000, Jonathon Fernyhough via aur-general wrote:

On 28/02/2021 04:45, Ralf Mardorf via aur-general wrote:

...

It might be unnecessary to build "the single `hugo` binary", but it's sort of necessary to build a package, at least if you prefer a well-structured over a poorly structured Arch Linux install.

My point, supporting the discussion so far, was that building hugo from source is not necessary to get the latest release in advance of the package being updated. Download it, make it executable, run it.

Nowhere did I say that using the existing PKGBUILD and building the package locally was a bad idea. However, it's certainly not necessary.

For example: https://aur.archlinux.org/cgit/aur.git/tree/PKGBUILD?h=katamari depends=('hugo') It's still not necessary to build a hugo package, if you build the katamari package by not listing hugo as a dependency, or by building an empty dummy package for hugo. It's possible to maintain an Arch Linux install by this approach to some extent, without running into trouble. It's asking for trouble, if this approach does gain the upper hand.

Thanks for all your suggestions I will build the package myself from source.

2021. febr. 28. dátummal, 17:38 időpontban Ralf Mardorf via aur-general írta:

On Sun, 28 Feb 2021 17:22:26 +0100, Ralf Mardorf wrote:

...

...

On Sun, 28 Feb 2021 14:44:57 +0000, Jonathon Fernyhough via aur-general wrote: On 28/02/2021 04:45, Ralf Mardorf via aur-general wrote:

...

It might be unnecessary to build "the single `hugo` binary", but it's sort of necessary to build a package, at least if you prefer a well-structured over a poorly structured Arch Linux install.

My point, supporting the discussion so far, was that building hugo from source is not necessary to get the latest release in advance of the package being updated. Download it, make it executable, run it.

Nowhere did I say that using the existing PKGBUILD and building the package locally was a bad idea. However, it's certainly not necessary.

For example:

https://aur.archlinux.org/cgit/aur.git/tree/PKGBUILD?h=katamari

depends=('hugo')

It's still not necessary to build a hugo package, if you build the katamari package by not listing hugo as a dependency, or by building an empty dummy package for hugo. It's possible to maintain an Arch Linux install by this approach to some extent, without running into trouble. It's asking for trouble, if this approach does gain the upper hand.

Or to make it even more fishy, don't remove the existing hugo package, just overwrite the file(s) or even keep two versions and just override the obsolete version via PATH. Where shall we end up?