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I would like to do this because I need the latest version of hugo for my work and the package in the community repo is out-of-date.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
On Sat, 27 Feb 2021 12:52:13 +0100 Barnabás Béres via aur-general aur-general@lists.archlinux.org 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I would like to do this because I need the latest version of hugo for my work and the package in the community repo is out-of-date.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
Simple, you can't. Not only is the name blacklisted, doing so under a different name is specifically disallowed by the AUR rules.
On Sat, Feb 27, 2021 at 12:52:13PM +0100, Barnabás Béres via aur-general wrote:
I would like to know how I can submit a package (namely hugo) to the AUR that is already in the community repo.
You don't: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/AUR_submission_guidelines
Unless you plan on doing hugo-git and that already exists: aur/hugo-git v0.54.0.r1.g5383fe458c0c-2
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I would like to do this because I need the latest version of hugo for my work and the package in the community repo is out-of-date.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
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 luca@z3ntu.xyz 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I would like to do this because I need the latest version of hugo for my work and the package in the community repo is out-of-date.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
Barnabás Béres via aur-general:
Thanks for your reply! I would have another question, if the package is still not updated, will it be removed from the community repo?
Not necessarily. But as former AUR maintainer I can assure you that hugo maintenance is mostly just a version bump and build time is moderate, so you can easily build and host it yourself.
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
On 27/02/2021 12:42, Kr1ss via aur-general wrote:
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
It's not even necessary to build it - download the single `hugo` binary from the project page and run it as-is.
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 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.
J
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.
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?
Thanks for all your suggestions I will build the package myself from source.
- febr. 28. dátummal, 17:38 időpontban Ralf Mardorf via aur-general aur-general@lists.archlinux.org 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?
On Sun, Feb 28, 2021 at 06:48:36PM +0100, Barnabás Béres via aur-general wrote:
Thanks for all your suggestions I will build the package myself from source.
I am one of the `hugo` maintainers. Sorry for the delay and not shipping the package on time. Next time, it would help a lot if you would just send us a PKBUILD patch for discussion + a short message that you have tested the build and it works for you. Such mails help a lot and I really hope that we could have such functionality in our gitlab one day.
If packages are delayed there are very often reasons for the delay:
* The package wasn't tested properly yet * The package needs additional work (for example working tests/checks for hugo) * The package has other issues that prevent updates (Is on a todo list, needs to wait for the release of a dependency etc) * The maintainer just had not time to have a look on it * ... maybe a few more...
Btw: In the mean time Jaroslav has updated the hugo package ;)
chris
aur-general@lists.archlinux.org