[aur-general] Bundled applications policy?
Hi, What is the policy regarding collection/amalgamation packages? 'manarchy' [1] is just a recent beta version of aircrack-ng (stable version in community) and an updated version of 'theharvester' [2] bundled together. Should [1] be removed/merged into [2], or should it split up into individual packages, or is it perfectly acceptable to have packages like this? Cheers, WorMzy [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/manarchy/ [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/theharvester/
On 20 December 2013 01:36, WorMzy Tykashi <wormzy.tykashi@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,
What is the policy regarding collection/amalgamation packages? 'manarchy' [1] is just a recent beta version of aircrack-ng (stable version in community) and an updated version of 'theharvester' [2] bundled together.
Should [1] be removed/merged into [2], or should it split up into individual packages, or is it perfectly acceptable to have packages like this?
Just provide for and conflict with the relevant packages and you don't give anyone any trouble. Alternatively, you could package up the beta version of the dep. But if this whole thing is a package of a real software collection (and not just a mash-up by a packager) then I see no problem. -- GPG/PGP ID: C0711BF1
On 19 December 2013 18:44, Rashif Ray Rahman <schiv@archlinux.org> wrote:
Just provide for and conflict with the relevant packages and you don't give anyone any trouble.
It's halfway there, it doesn't conflict with or provide theharvester package, though that's something I was going to mention when I comment about some changes they should make to the PKGBUILD (shouldn't be an 'any' package, binaries shouldn't be in /usr/sbin, etc.). I just wanted to check that such packages are allowed before prompting them to fix it up.
But if this whole thing is a package of a real software collection (and not just a mash-up by a packager) then I see no problem.
It's the latter, the package pulls from two different, unrelated sources and merges them into one package. The only thing is, neither source is otherwise available on the AUR or official repositories (as far as I can tell). WorMzy
On 20 December 2013 04:20, WorMzy Tykashi <wormzy.tykashi@gmail.com> wrote:
On 19 December 2013 18:44, Rashif Ray Rahman <schiv@archlinux.org> wrote:
Just provide for and conflict with the relevant packages and you don't give anyone any trouble.
It's halfway there, it doesn't conflict with or provide theharvester package, though that's something I was going to mention when I comment about some changes they should make to the PKGBUILD (shouldn't be an 'any' package, binaries shouldn't be in /usr/sbin, etc.). I just wanted to check that such packages are allowed before prompting them to fix it up.
But if this whole thing is a package of a real software collection (and not just a mash-up by a packager) then I see no problem.
It's the latter, the package pulls from two different, unrelated sources and merges them into one package. The only thing is, neither source is otherwise available on the AUR or official repositories (as far as I can tell).
A better way to rephrase what I meant is this: if it's a useful bundle that people will use (if some people find the beta dep better), then there is no problem. The "Arch way" would be to provide a separate package for the beta dep instead, but you can tell if your idea (of bundling) is working if nobody says anything about that. -- GPG/PGP ID: C0711BF1
Hi, I posted a message on the package, but the maintainer has not responded yet. Their email is also not a recognised email address (I have tried to contact them regarding my suggestions) I should have clarified in my last mail that this package is not my own, but one that was brought to my attention on the Arch forums by a new user seeking assistance with it. Since the owner is unreachable, would it be possible to remove the package now (despite the two week rule). If preferred, I'll write a PKGBUILD for the beta aircrack-ng package and update the theharvester PKGBUILD so that the AUR status quo is maintained. I'll immediately aurphan these packages so that someone else can maintain them, however, as I have no interest in these tools.. Please let me know what your thoughts are, and how we should best proceed. Happy holidays, WorMzy On 20 December 2013 13:35, Rashif Ray Rahman <schiv@archlinux.org> wrote:
On 20 December 2013 04:20, WorMzy Tykashi <wormzy.tykashi@gmail.com> wrote:
On 19 December 2013 18:44, Rashif Ray Rahman <schiv@archlinux.org> wrote:
Just provide for and conflict with the relevant packages and you don't give anyone any trouble.
It's halfway there, it doesn't conflict with or provide theharvester package, though that's something I was going to mention when I comment about some changes they should make to the PKGBUILD (shouldn't be an 'any' package, binaries shouldn't be in /usr/sbin, etc.). I just wanted to check that such packages are allowed before prompting them to fix it up.
But if this whole thing is a package of a real software collection (and not just a mash-up by a packager) then I see no problem.
It's the latter, the package pulls from two different, unrelated sources and merges them into one package. The only thing is, neither source is otherwise available on the AUR or official repositories (as far as I can tell).
A better way to rephrase what I meant is this: if it's a useful bundle that people will use (if some people find the beta dep better), then there is no problem. The "Arch way" would be to provide a separate package for the beta dep instead, but you can tell if your idea (of bundling) is working if nobody says anything about that.
-- GPG/PGP ID: C0711BF1
Hi, Bump. Maintainer has abandoned the package in the meantime, so please remove the package (link for convenience: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/manarchy/ ). Cheers, WorMzy On 26 December 2013 16:43, WorMzy Tykashi <wormzy.tykashi@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,
I posted a message on the package, but the maintainer has not responded yet. Their email is also not a recognised email address (I have tried to contact them regarding my suggestions)
I should have clarified in my last mail that this package is not my own, but one that was brought to my attention on the Arch forums by a new user seeking assistance with it.
Since the owner is unreachable, would it be possible to remove the package now (despite the two week rule). If preferred, I'll write a PKGBUILD for the beta aircrack-ng package and update the theharvester PKGBUILD so that the AUR status quo is maintained. I'll immediately aurphan these packages so that someone else can maintain them, however, as I have no interest in these tools..
Please let me know what your thoughts are, and how we should best proceed.
Happy holidays,
WorMzy
On 20 December 2013 13:35, Rashif Ray Rahman <schiv@archlinux.org> wrote:
On 20 December 2013 04:20, WorMzy Tykashi <wormzy.tykashi@gmail.com> wrote:
On 19 December 2013 18:44, Rashif Ray Rahman <schiv@archlinux.org> wrote:
Just provide for and conflict with the relevant packages and you don't give anyone any trouble.
It's halfway there, it doesn't conflict with or provide theharvester package, though that's something I was going to mention when I comment about some changes they should make to the PKGBUILD (shouldn't be an 'any' package, binaries shouldn't be in /usr/sbin, etc.). I just wanted to check that such packages are allowed before prompting them to fix it up.
But if this whole thing is a package of a real software collection (and not just a mash-up by a packager) then I see no problem.
It's the latter, the package pulls from two different, unrelated sources and merges them into one package. The only thing is, neither source is otherwise available on the AUR or official repositories (as far as I can tell).
A better way to rephrase what I meant is this: if it's a useful bundle that people will use (if some people find the beta dep better), then there is no problem. The "Arch way" would be to provide a separate package for the beta dep instead, but you can tell if your idea (of bundling) is working if nobody says anything about that.
-- GPG/PGP ID: C0711BF1
Apologies for top posting.
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 11:36 AM, WorMzy Tykashi <wormzy.tykashi@gmail.com>wrote:
Apologies for top posting.
Gone, thx. -- Maxime
participants (3)
-
Maxime Gauduin
-
Rashif Ray Rahman
-
WorMzy Tykashi