[aur-general] Only lower case letters?
Hello I'm making a package of iceweasel's translations with help of firefox' pkgbuild, but when I try to upload it aur throws an error that says "Invalid name: only lowercase letters are allowed." What does that error exactly means? This is my pkgbuild http://pastebin.com/U37MwGri
On Thursday, January 10, 2013 04:19:56 PM Jorge Barroso wrote:
Hello I'm making a package of iceweasel's translations with help of firefox' pkgbuild, but when I try to upload it aur throws an error that says
"Invalid name: only lowercase letters are allowed."
What does that error exactly means? This is my pkgbuild
AUR do not support splitted packages. See [1] for more info. [1] https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/16394 -- Felix Yan Twitter: @felixonmars Wiki: http://felixc.at
2013/1/10 Felix Yan <felixonmars@gmail.com>
AUR do not support splitted packages. See [1] for more info.
So what can I do? :S
2013/1/10 Jorge Barroso <jorge.barroso.11@gmail.com>:
2013/1/10 Felix Yan <felixonmars@gmail.com>
AUR do not support splitted packages. See [1] for more info.
So what can I do? :S
Create one PKGBUILD for each package. I suggest a shell script to make this creation/maintainance task more automatic.
2013/1/10 rafael ff1 <rafael.f.f1@gmail.com>
Create one PKGBUILD for each package. I suggest a shell script to make this creation/maintainance task more automatic.
2013/1/10 Felix Yan <felixonmars@gmail.com>
A workaround I saw is
pkgname=yourpkgbase true && pkgname=('one' 'two' 'three' ...)
hope this helps :)
I'll try what you said felix :D rafael I did so, but there was a TU (Barthalion) that removed all the packages and told me to make a split package, and also that he'll suspend my account if I do it again :S
2013/1/10 Jorge Barroso <jorge.barroso.11@gmail.com>:
2013/1/10 rafael ff1 <rafael.f.f1@gmail.com>
Create one PKGBUILD for each package. I suggest a shell script to make this creation/maintainance task more automatic.
2013/1/10 Felix Yan <felixonmars@gmail.com>
A workaround I saw is
pkgname=yourpkgbase true && pkgname=('one' 'two' 'three' ...)
hope this helps :)
I'll try what you said felix :D rafael I did so, but there was a TU (Barthalion) that removed all the packages and told me to make a split package, and also that he'll suspend my account if I do it again :S
... and AUR don't support split packages. Awesome situation. In this case, better got with Felix's suggestion.
On 01/10/2013 06:18 PM, rafael ff1 wrote:
2013/1/10 Jorge Barroso <jorge.barroso.11@gmail.com>:
2013/1/10 rafael ff1 <rafael.f.f1@gmail.com>
Create one PKGBUILD for each package. I suggest a shell script to make this creation/maintainance task more automatic.
2013/1/10 Felix Yan <felixonmars@gmail.com>
A workaround I saw is
pkgname=yourpkgbase true && pkgname=('one' 'two' 'three' ...)
hope this helps :)
I'll try what you said felix :D rafael I did so, but there was a TU (Barthalion) that removed all the packages and told me to make a split package, and also that he'll suspend my account if I do it again :S
... and AUR don't support split packages. Awesome situation. In this case, better got with Felix's suggestion.
It doesn't support them directly, but many packagers use Felix' workaround. If you are going to spam AUR like Jorge did, I'll be in really wild mood, trust me. -- Bartłomiej Piotrowski Arch Linux Trusted User http://archlinux.org/
2013/1/10 Bartłomiej Piotrowski <b@bpiotrowski.pl>:
On 01/10/2013 06:18 PM, rafael ff1 wrote:
2013/1/10 Jorge Barroso <jorge.barroso.11@gmail.com>:
2013/1/10 rafael ff1 <rafael.f.f1@gmail.com>
Create one PKGBUILD for each package. I suggest a shell script to make this creation/maintainance task more automatic.
2013/1/10 Felix Yan <felixonmars@gmail.com>
A workaround I saw is
pkgname=yourpkgbase true && pkgname=('one' 'two' 'three' ...)
hope this helps :)
I'll try what you said felix :D rafael I did so, but there was a TU (Barthalion) that removed all the packages and told me to make a split package, and also that he'll suspend my account if I do it again :S
... and AUR don't support split packages. Awesome situation. In this case, better got with Felix's suggestion.
It doesn't support them directly, but many packagers use Felix' workaround. If you are going to spam AUR like Jorge did, I'll be in really wild mood, trust me.
-- Bartłomiej Piotrowski Arch Linux Trusted User http://archlinux.org/
I didn't said that I think your decision was wrong. Chill out. ;)
2013/1/10 Bartłomiej Piotrowski <b@bpiotrowski.pl>
It doesn't support them directly, but many packagers use Felix' workaround. If you are going to spam AUR like Jorge did, I'll be in really wild mood, trust me.
Ok Bartłomiej, it wasn't my intention to offend you, sorry, I was just describing my situation, and... yes, I've had no time until now, but I'm going to try and let's see what can I do. Although, I don't think I was spamming... but, you command...
Bartłomiej Piotrowski wrote:
It doesn't support them directly, but many packagers use Felix' workaround. If you are going to spam AUR like Jorge did, I'll be in really wild mood, trust me.
What did he do that you consider spamming?
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 1:25 AM, Xyne <xyne@archlinux.ca> wrote:
Bartłomiej Piotrowski wrote:
It doesn't support them directly, but many packagers use Felix' workaround. If you are going to spam AUR like Jorge did, I'll be in really wild mood, trust me.
What did he do that you consider spamming?
88 packages are quite a lot. (src: OP’s original split PKGBUILD) -- Kwpolska <http://kwpolska.tk> stop html mail | always bottom-post www.asciiribbon.org | www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html GPG KEY: 5EAAEA16
Kwpolska wrote:
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 1:25 AM, Xyne <xyne@archlinux.ca> wrote:
Bartłomiej Piotrowski wrote:
It doesn't support them directly, but many packagers use Felix' workaround. If you are going to spam AUR like Jorge did, I'll be in really wild mood, trust me.
What did he do that you consider spamming?
88 packages are quite a lot. (src: OP’s original split PKGBUILD)
When did contributing to the AUR become "spamming"? The packages are for separate languages and directly correspond to upstream. I do not consider that spam at all. If anything, it is a commendable effort to provide those packages despite the AURs inability to (fully) support split packages. If TUs now threaten users who contribute too much then I think something has gone very wrong.
On 01/13/2013 03:52 PM, Xyne wrote:
Kwpolska wrote:
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 1:25 AM, Xyne <xyne@archlinux.ca> wrote:
Bartłomiej Piotrowski wrote:
It doesn't support them directly, but many packagers use Felix' workaround. If you are going to spam AUR like Jorge did, I'll be in really wild mood, trust me.
What did he do that you consider spamming?
88 packages are quite a lot. (src: OP’s original split PKGBUILD)
When did contributing to the AUR become "spamming"? The packages are for separate languages and directly correspond to upstream. I do not consider that spam at all. If anything, it is a commendable effort to provide those packages despite the AURs inability to (fully) support split packages.
If TUs now threaten users who contribute too much then I think something has gone very wrong.
I wonder if he also consider the libreoffice packages in the repos to be spam. -- Kindest Regards, Johannes "Kyrias" Löthberg Key ID: D84845F1 595C 8E08 DAE1 4A56 492C F750 BE76 C444 D848 45F1
On 01/13/2013 04:00 PM, Johannes Löthberg wrote:
On 01/13/2013 03:52 PM, Xyne wrote:
Kwpolska wrote:
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 1:25 AM, Xyne <xyne@archlinux.ca> wrote:
Bartłomiej Piotrowski wrote:
It doesn't support them directly, but many packagers use Felix' workaround. If you are going to spam AUR like Jorge did, I'll be in really wild mood, trust me.
What did he do that you consider spamming?
88 packages are quite a lot. (src: OP’s original split PKGBUILD)
When did contributing to the AUR become "spamming"? The packages are for separate languages and directly correspond to upstream. I do not consider that spam at all. If anything, it is a commendable effort to provide those packages despite the AURs inability to (fully) support split packages.
If TUs now threaten users who contribute too much then I think something has gone very wrong.
I wonder if he also consider the libreoffice packages in the repos to be spam.
I wonder if you have something constructive to say. -- Bartłomiej Piotrowski Arch Linux Trusted User http://archlinux.org/
Looking forward, what would it take for AUR to support split packages? Are there any particular or known obstacles, if one were to try to write a patch? -- Sincerely, Alexander Rødseth xyproto / TU
On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 4:35 PM, Alexander Rødseth <rodseth@gmail.com> wrote:
Looking forward, what would it take for AUR to support split packages? Are there any particular or known obstacles, if one were to try to write a patch?
PHP is one known obstacle. Bash parsing might be yet another one, but that shouldn’t be *too* hard to deal with. -- Kwpolska <http://kwpolska.tk> stop html mail | always bottom-post www.asciiribbon.org | www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html GPG KEY: 5EAAEA16
On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 10:35 AM, Alexander Rødseth <rodseth@gmail.com> wrote:
Looking forward, what would it take for AUR to support split packages? Are there any particular or known obstacles, if one were to try to write a patch?
The relevant bug entry is FS#16394 [1]. Also the task it depends on, FS#15043, is quite important [2]. The basic issue is PKGBUILD parsing is really difficult to do. Take a look at the source for pkgsubmit.php [3]. In particular, lines 122-272 are representative of the craziness that takes place when the AUR currently tries to parse a PKGBUILD. IMHO, the only realistic way of ever including split packages in the AUR is the use of a source package metadata file. A dead easy to parse file within a source tarball that can give the AUR all the information it needs without all the bash parsing it currently attempts. I actually did a test a while back of such a file that the AUR could parse. It not only cut out a lot of cruft from the submission logic, but also fixed a few bugs and made split packages feasible. Just as a side note, a recent commit provides a more helpful error message when a user tries to submit a split package [4]. The particular PKGBUILD in the original post was crafted in a way so that error wasn't triggered and that cryptic message was printed. [1] https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/16394 [2] https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/15043 [3] https://projects.archlinux.org/aur.git/tree/web/html/pkgsubmit.php [4] https://projects.archlinux.org/aur.git/commit/?id=789245077d1ded7b2aaf4631bb...
canyonknight wrote:
IMHO, the only realistic way of ever including split packages in the AUR is the use of a source package metadata file. A dead easy to parse file within a source tarball that can give the AUR all the information it needs without all the bash parsing it currently attempts.
The truth is that using raw Bash to encapsulate package data was a lazy hack that didn't consider any future needs for (secure) metadata extraction. That only got worse with split PKGBUILDs as they bury metadata in functions so you can't even source the PKGBUILD to get that. The real solution is not to provide that same data redundantly in a second file but to replace PKGBUILDs with something better. I don't think that will ever happen in Pacman because of the work it would require. Fwiw, it is possible. My own internal system uses JSON to store package metadata and I just keep build and package code in a separate file. The only limitation is all of the nasty conditional logic used to configure different architectures, but even that can be gracefully handled with some thought and subdictionaries in the JSON file. One day someone will hopefully write a full bash parser that can safely extract the data instead of quick hacks to unreliably skim the basics.
On 01/13/2013 03:52 PM, Xyne wrote:
Kwpolska wrote:
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 1:25 AM, Xyne <xyne@archlinux.ca> wrote:
Bartłomiej Piotrowski wrote:
It doesn't support them directly, but many packagers use Felix' workaround. If you are going to spam AUR like Jorge did, I'll be in really wild mood, trust me.
What did he do that you consider spamming?
88 packages are quite a lot. (src: OP’s original split PKGBUILD)
When did contributing to the AUR become "spamming"? The packages are for separate languages and directly correspond to upstream. I do not consider that spam at all. If anything, it is a commendable effort to provide those packages despite the AURs inability to (fully) support split packages.
If TUs now threaten users who contribute too much then I think something has gone very wrong.
When did spamming AUR become "contributing"? It's not big deal to create one split PKGBUILD for each language provided by one upstream team. OP could at least comply to our warnings and tips before I threatened him. If TU criticizes the decision taken after discussion on IRC then I think something has gone very wrong. =) -- Bartłomiej Piotrowski Arch Linux Trusted User http://archlinux.org/
Bartłomiej Piotrowski wrote:
When did spamming AUR become "contributing"? It's not big deal to create one split PKGBUILD for each language provided by one upstream team. OP could at least comply to our warnings and tips before I threatened him.
Until the AUR properly supports split packages, separate distinct packages should not be considered spam.
If TU criticizes the decision taken after discussion on IRC then I think something has gone very wrong. =)
Only a subset of TUs are on IRC and even fewer at any given moment. You cannot expect TUs to even be aware of all discussion that occurs there, let alone expect them to agree with it after the fact. Official discussion happens on this list, where all TUs (and users) can follow and participate. Regards, Xyne
On Thursday, January 10, 2013 05:41:01 PM Jorge Barroso wrote:
2013/1/10 Felix Yan <felixonmars@gmail.com>
AUR do not support splitted packages. See [1] for more info.
So what can I do? :S
A workaround I saw is pkgname=yourpkgbase true && pkgname=('one' 'two' 'three' ...) hope this helps :) -- Felix Yan Twitter: @felixonmars Wiki: http://felixc.at
participants (9)
-
Alexander Rødseth
-
Bartłomiej Piotrowski
-
canyonknight
-
Felix Yan
-
Johannes Löthberg
-
Jorge Barroso
-
Kwpolska
-
rafael ff1
-
Xyne