[aur-general] AUR and deb or other precompiled stuff
in some recent updates of some packages you see more and more deb's or rpms or whatever being extracted and repacked for arch is there some aur guideline about this, i really don't like this development because why not take advantage of our bleeding edge gcc power if the source is there, why not build from it? in cases like opera it is understandable because it is not open source, but in some other cases like kalsamix i find it very disturbing maybe some other comments about this ?
First I just wanted to clear this, I would normally build from source, but if it doesn't work I will attempt at a deb package, but even that doesn't work On 06/04/2010 03:28 AM, Ike Devolder wrote:
in some recent updates of some packages you see more and more deb's or rpms or whatever being extracted and repacked for arch
is there some aur guideline about this, i really don't like this development because why not take advantage of our bleeding edge gcc power
if the source is there, why not build from it?
in cases like opera it is understandable because it is not open source, but in some other cases like kalsamix i find it very disturbing
maybe some other comments about this ?
On 06/04/2010 03:28 AM, Ike Devolder wrote:
in some recent updates of some packages you see more and more deb's or rpms or whatever being extracted and repacked for arch
is there some aur guideline about this, i really don't like this development because why not take advantage of our bleeding edge gcc power
if the source is there, why not build from it?
in cases like opera it is understandable because it is not open source, but in some other cases like kalsamix i find it very disturbing
maybe some other comments about this ?
Excerpts from Nathan O.'s message of 2010-06-04 10:29:56 +0200: First I just wanted to clear this, I would normally build from source, but if it doesn't work I will attempt at a deb package, but even that doesn't work
What about using debian patches? I don't know why they aren't upstream in the first place, but... At the moment I kind of understand it that alternatives to compiling are sought. gcc4.5.0 seems to not only introduce new warnings and errors but also bugs. I helped yesterday to hopefully nail a bad optimisation related one. Some call it insane to build a distro on a *.0 gcc. -- Regards, Philipp -- "Wir stehen selbst enttäuscht und sehn betroffen / Den Vorhang zu und alle Fragen offen." Bertolt Brecht, Der gute Mensch von Sezuan
@Philipp thanks for giving me the idea, I will see if I can find one, though I am not 100% sure I will be able to since it is not actually on Debian's site. Somebody built the package for the software author. On 06/04/2010 02:36 AM, Philipp Überbacher wrote:
On 06/04/2010 03:28 AM, Ike Devolder wrote:
in some recent updates of some packages you see more and more deb's or rpms or whatever being extracted and repacked for arch
is there some aur guideline about this, i really don't like this development because why not take advantage of our bleeding edge gcc power
if the source is there, why not build from it?
in cases like opera it is understandable because it is not open source, but in some other cases like kalsamix i find it very disturbing
maybe some other comments about this ?
Excerpts from Nathan O.'s message of 2010-06-04 10:29:56 +0200:
First I just wanted to clear this, I would normally build from source, but if it doesn't work I will attempt at a deb package, but even that doesn't work
What about using debian patches? I don't know why they aren't upstream in the first place, but...
At the moment I kind of understand it that alternatives to compiling are sought. gcc4.5.0 seems to not only introduce new warnings and errors but also bugs. I helped yesterday to hopefully nail a bad optimisation related one. Some call it insane to build a distro on a *.0 gcc.
Excerpts from Nathan O.'s message of 2010-06-04 10:42:33 +0200:
@Philipp thanks for giving me the idea, I will see if I can find one, though I am not 100% sure I will be able to since it is not actually on Debian's site. Somebody built the package for the software author.
Another place to look at is gentoo. They are quite up-to-date as well and source based, it should be easy to find patches. It's the first place I look at when hunting for patches. If it is a gcc 4.5.0 issue then you might have no luck there either. -- Regards, Philipp -- "Wir stehen selbst enttäuscht und sehn betroffen / Den Vorhang zu und alle Fragen offen." Bertolt Brecht, Der gute Mensch von Sezuan
On 04/06/10 18:36, Philipp Überbacher wrote:
Excerpts from Nathan O.'s message of 2010-06-04 10:42:33 +0200:
@Philipp thanks for giving me the idea, I will see if I can find one, though I am not 100% sure I will be able to since it is not actually on Debian's site. Somebody built the package for the software author.
Another place to look at is gentoo. They are quite up-to-date as well and source based, it should be easy to find patches. It's the first place I look at when hunting for patches. If it is a gcc 4.5.0 issue then you might have no luck there either.
Gentoo has users that like to bootstrap a system with prerelease gcc-*.0 version so many fixes get included before the release. Gentoo also has a bug report open for collecting gcc-4.5 issues. There are relatively few.
On 4 June 2010 17:58, Allan McRae
On 04/06/10 18:36, Philipp Überbacher wrote:
Excerpts from Nathan O.'s message of 2010-06-04 10:42:33 +0200:
@Philipp thanks for giving me the idea, I will see if I can find one, though I am not 100% sure I will be able to since it is not actually on Debian's site. Somebody built the package for the software author.
Another place to look at is gentoo. They are quite up-to-date as well and source based, it should be easy to find patches. It's the first place I look at when hunting for patches. If it is a gcc 4.5.0 issue then you might have no luck there either.
Gentoo has users that like to bootstrap a system with prerelease gcc-*.0 version so many fixes get included before the release. Gentoo also has a bug report open for collecting gcc-4.5 issues. There are relatively few.
That is why I have the entire portage tree locally, handy thing to keep around. But wait, don't tell anyone! -- GPG/PGP ID: B42DDCAD
i'm sorry if this is somekind of attack on your effort to keep this packages
up to date
it was just your message about kalsamix that triggered my concern about deb
packages since i saw more of this.
2010/6/4 Nathan O.
First I just wanted to clear this, I would normally build from source, but if it doesn't work I will attempt at a deb package, but even that doesn't work
On 06/04/2010 03:28 AM, Ike Devolder wrote:
in some recent updates of some packages you see more and more deb's or rpms or whatever being extracted and repacked for arch
is there some aur guideline about this, i really don't like this development because why not take advantage of our bleeding edge gcc power
if the source is there, why not build from it?
in cases like opera it is understandable because it is not open source, but in some other cases like kalsamix i find it very disturbing
maybe some other comments about this ?
I understand, and I am not trying to attack either, just wanted to clarify why I am trying the deb file to attempt to get it to work. See kamix was the previous version, kalsamix is the updated name version, so I am trying to get it to work in case something may depend on it or somebody wants it. On 06/04/2010 03:37 AM, Ike Devolder wrote:
i'm sorry if this is somekind of attack on your effort to keep this packages up to date
it was just your message about kalsamix that triggered my concern about deb packages since i saw more of this.
2010/6/4 Nathan O.
First I just wanted to clear this, I would normally build from source, but if it doesn't work I will attempt at a deb package, but even that doesn't work
On 06/04/2010 03:28 AM, Ike Devolder wrote:
in some recent updates of some packages you see more and more deb's or rpms or whatever being extracted and repacked for arch
is there some aur guideline about this, i really don't like this development because why not take advantage of our bleeding edge gcc power
if the source is there, why not build from it?
in cases like opera it is understandable because it is not open source, but in some other cases like kalsamix i find it very disturbing
maybe some other comments about this ?
I understand your reason for doing it
and maybe be are some massochists as Philipp says because we're building on
a gcc *.0
but thats the fun of arch ofcourse
2010/6/4 Nathan O.
I understand, and I am not trying to attack either, just wanted to clarify why I am trying the deb file to attempt to get it to work. See kamix was the previous version, kalsamix is the updated name version, so I am trying to get it to work in case something may depend on it or somebody wants it.
On 06/04/2010 03:37 AM, Ike Devolder wrote:
i'm sorry if this is somekind of attack on your effort to keep this packages up to date
it was just your message about kalsamix that triggered my concern about deb packages since i saw more of this.
2010/6/4 Nathan O.
First I just wanted to clear this, I would normally build from source, but if it doesn't work I will attempt at a deb package, but even that doesn't work
On 06/04/2010 03:28 AM, Ike Devolder wrote:
in some recent updates of some packages you see more and more deb's or rpms or whatever being extracted and repacked for arch
is there some aur guideline about this, i really don't like this development because why not take advantage of our bleeding edge gcc power
if the source is there, why not build from it?
in cases like opera it is understandable because it is not open source, but in some other cases like kalsamix i find it very disturbing
maybe some other comments about this ?
Though I am not sure I am going to have any success with this, every thing that I attempt and know to try fails. On 06/04/2010 03:46 AM, Ike Devolder wrote:
I understand your reason for doing it
and maybe be are some massochists as Philipp says because we're building on a gcc *.0
but thats the fun of arch ofcourse
2010/6/4 Nathan O.
I understand, and I am not trying to attack either, just wanted to clarify why I am trying the deb file to attempt to get it to work. See kamix was the previous version, kalsamix is the updated name version, so I am trying to get it to work in case something may depend on it or somebody wants it.
On 06/04/2010 03:37 AM, Ike Devolder wrote:
i'm sorry if this is somekind of attack on your effort to keep this packages up to date
it was just your message about kalsamix that triggered my concern about deb packages since i saw more of this.
2010/6/4 Nathan O.
First I just wanted to clear this, I would normally build from source, but if it doesn't work I will attempt at a deb package, but even that doesn't work
On 06/04/2010 03:28 AM, Ike Devolder wrote:
in some recent updates of some packages you see more and more deb's or rpms or whatever being extracted and repacked for arch
is there some aur guideline about this, i really don't like this development because why not take advantage of our bleeding edge gcc power
if the source is there, why not build from it?
in cases like opera it is understandable because it is not open source, but in some other cases like kalsamix i find it very disturbing
maybe some other comments about this ?
Please stop top posting. It is really, really, really annoying. Allan
On 06/04/2010 04:12 AM, Allan McRae wrote:
Please stop top posting. It is really, really, really annoying.
Allan Sorry.
On 04/06/10 18:28, Ike Devolder wrote:
in some recent updates of some packages you see more and more deb's or rpms or whatever being extracted and repacked for arch
is there some aur guideline about this, i really don't like this development because why not take advantage of our bleeding edge gcc power
if the source is there, why not build from it?
in cases like opera it is understandable because it is not open source, but in some other cases like kalsamix i find it very disturbing
maybe some other comments about this ?
I agree. Everything should be built from source where possible. Allan
Well, may I ask a question in this context? Many Arch opponents say we have a very limited number of binary packages and a lot of it in unsuported. I'm looking at my desktop box and really can't deny it. I have a lot of software from AUR. Why this happens? Very limited resources, few TU's, strict official repos policy or what? Sorry for offtopic, maybe I need to post this on forums?
in some recent updates of some packages you see more and more deb's or rpms or whatever being extracted and repacked for arch
is there some aur guideline about this, i really don't like this development because why not take advantage of our bleeding edge gcc power
if the source is there, why not build from it?
in cases like opera it is understandable because it is not open source, but in some other cases like kalsamix i find it very disturbing
maybe some other comments about this ?
I agree. Everything should be built from source where possible.
Allan
participants (6)
-
Allan McRae
-
Ike Devolder
-
Nathan O.
-
Philipp Überbacher
-
Ray Rashif
-
Александр Фролушкин