[aur-general] [review-request] moolticute
Hi, I'm looking for uploading moolticute[0] into AUR but I still have some doubt that my package has good taste or not. The project is in C++ and use qt-5. I would like to upload a classical PKGBUILD[1] (with tag release) then one that follow the git master branch[2]. As the daemon is expected to talk with an USB device I included an udev rules that should match it and allow logged user interaction. In addition, the project does not include any systemd service file. The daemon is expected to run for every user session so I use systemd user instance. This service file is now very basic I will first try to make it upstream, so every distribution could benefit from this eventually. I guess that a lot are using systemd now. While creating the systemd file I was wonderering how would be the guideline in a case that an upstream systemd service file won't match (for any reason) Arch Linux policy (let say applying it will break the package functionality in Arch) would the good way to fix it in the first would be to create in the PKGBUILD a systemd drop-ins? Regarding udev, after installing my rule I decided to force reloading the rules files but not replaying event (only print a message to warn the user). My view is that the later would only be needed for people that already plugged the device before installing the package. Even with the i686 phase out, the tools seems to work great with this architecture, so I included it too. Finally, the release name[3] currently include "beta" (like v0.5.2-beta) does I have to put this into the pkgver or leave as 0.5.2? If comments/directions I will be glad to improve my work. Thanks ! [0] https://github.com/raoulh/moolticute [1] https://git.bourgeois.eu/aur_moolticute.git/tree/PKGBUILD?id=85e4d6f29352a54... [2] https://git.bourgeois.eu/aur_moolticute_git.git/tree/PKGBUILD?id=140f3e3efce... [3] https://github.com/raoulh/moolticute/releases
On 01/28/2017 07:55 PM, Quentin Bourgeois wrote:
As the daemon is expected to talk with an USB device I included an udev rules that should match it and allow logged user interaction. In addition, the project does not include any systemd service file. The daemon is expected to run for every user session so I use systemd user instance. This service file is now very basic I will first try to make it upstream, so every distribution could benefit from this eventually. I guess that a lot are using systemd now.
Yes, please do that. If upstream won't do so however, it is okay to bundle a service file with the PKGBUILD. Upstream should also, ideally, install a udev rule themselves. For some reason, their README explicitly tells Ubuntu and Arch users to create *different* udev rules by hand, using `echo ... | sudo tee`. Which is weird for several reasons.
While creating the systemd file I was wonderering how would be the guideline in a case that an upstream systemd service file won't match (for any reason) Arch Linux policy (let say applying it will break the package functionality in Arch) would the good way to fix it in the first would be to create in the PKGBUILD a systemd drop-ins?
I'm not sure what you even mean by this. How would a systemd unit break its own functionality, and if so, why wouldn't that be a cause for concern upstream? What Arch Linux policy would it violate anyway?
Regarding udev, after installing my rule I decided to force reloading the rules files but not replaying event (only print a message to warn the user). My view is that the later would only be needed for people that already plugged the device before installing the package.
Take a look at the (many) packages that own a file in /usr/lib/udev/rules.d/ and try to see how many of them include an install script explicitly reloading the rules. (Hint: None of them.) There is a reason for this, udev is already pretty smart. As for the message, surely that is rather obvious already? install scripts are meant for situations where simply installing the package isn't enough to actually make things work, or *vitally critical information is likely to elude the user* unless you bug them about it in a post-install message. Telling the user that an intuitive aspect of hardware device control applies here too, smells like over-mothering handholding to me.
Even with the i686 phase out, the tools seems to work great with this architecture, so I included it too.
Given that i686 isn't going to be dropped at all for months yet, and even then stands a good chance of being kept alive as a second-tier, officially-supported arch, I wouldn't be so hasty to drop it anyway. :)
Finally, the release name[3] currently include "beta" (like v0.5.2-beta) does I have to put this into the pkgver or leave as 0.5.2?
Are they using the word "beta" to mean "we haven't reached the 1.0
milestone yet, and/or this project has no polish and may eat your
homework, #include
On 01/29/2017 01:55 AM, Quentin Bourgeois wrote:
Hi,
I'm looking for uploading moolticute[0] into AUR but I still have some doubt that my package has good taste or not. The project is in C++ and use qt-5.
Hi, I also wanted to package moolticute for AUR but it was not ready at that time. I had not tried to package it again but still have it on my TODO list. It would be nice if you could contact me via tox/irc so we could possibly work together on this. When moolticute gets popular enough I plan to move it to the official repository. We also have a good chance that upstream accepts our patches, as I've already worked with them and it shouldnt be that hard to apply some systemd patches for example. So contact me in privat if you like to work together. I can also test with real hardware (Normal one and Mini Beta hardware). Cheers, Nico
On 17-01-28 21:08:09, Eli Schwartz via aur-general wrote:
On 01/28/2017 07:55 PM, Quentin Bourgeois wrote:
As the daemon is expected to talk with an USB device I included an udev rules that should match it and allow logged user interaction. In addition, the project does not include any systemd service file. The daemon is expected to run for every user session so I use systemd user instance. This service file is now very basic I will first try to make it upstream, so every distribution could benefit from this eventually. I guess that a lot are using systemd now.
Yes, please do that. If upstream won't do so however, it is okay to bundle a service file with the PKGBUILD.
Upstream should also, ideally, install a udev rule themselves. For some reason, their README explicitly tells Ubuntu and Arch users to create *different* udev rules by hand, using `echo ... | sudo tee`. Which is weird for several reasons.
Hi, sorry for the delay, I worked with upstream and both the systemd service file and the udev rules will be provided in the next release of the software. I also merge udev for Arch and Ubuntu as the rule should work on every systemd based node.
While creating the systemd file I was wonderering how would be the guideline in a case that an upstream systemd service file won't match (for any reason) Arch Linux policy (let say applying it will break the package functionality in Arch) would the good way to fix it in the first would be to create in the PKGBUILD a systemd drop-ins?
Maybe a better way to turn my question would be: What if, an Arch packager would like to improve in some way a systemd service provided by upstream (for example by using one of the different isolation mechanisms provided by systemd), but that improvement is rejected by upstream for reason not application to Arch Linux. But it could not make sense.
I'm not sure what you even mean by this. How would a systemd unit break its own functionality, and if so, why wouldn't that be a cause for concern upstream? What Arch Linux policy would it violate anyway?
Regarding udev, after installing my rule I decided to force reloading the rules files but not replaying event (only print a message to warn the user). My view is that the later would only be needed for people that already plugged the device before installing the package.
Take a look at the (many) packages that own a file in /usr/lib/udev/rules.d/ and try to see how many of them include an install script explicitly reloading the rules. (Hint: None of them.) There is a reason for this, udev is already pretty smart.
As for the message, surely that is rather obvious already? install scripts are meant for situations where simply installing the package isn't enough to actually make things work, or *vitally critical information is likely to elude the user* unless you bug them about it in a post-install message.
Telling the user that an intuitive aspect of hardware device control applies here too, smells like over-mothering handholding to me.
Get it, I removed this part. On 17-01-29 11:06:05, NicoHood wrote:
On 01/29/2017 01:55 AM, Quentin Bourgeois wrote:
Hi,
I'm looking for uploading moolticute[0] into AUR but I still have some doubt that my package has good taste or not. The project is in C++ and use qt-5.
Hi, I also wanted to package moolticute for AUR but it was not ready at that time. I had not tried to package it again but still have it on my TODO list. It would be nice if you could contact me via tox/irc so we could possibly work together on this.
When moolticute gets popular enough I plan to move it to the official repository. We also have a good chance that upstream accepts our patches, as I've already worked with them and it shouldnt be that hard to apply some systemd patches for example.
So contact me in privat if you like to work together. I can also test with real hardware (Normal one and Mini Beta hardware).
Cheers, Nico
Hi Nico, I will ping you on IRC for that. I will also package the client and ssh-agent for AUR in the next week, so I will probably asking new advice on Go package at that time.
Hi, Still about the moolticute packaging I am in a situation where different tools (that will leave in different Arch package) will needs access to the device. For that, I am considering moving the udev rules in other package[0] and make every tools depend on the former[1]. I only see android-udev that perform the same thing, am I doing this right ? Thanks! [0] https://git.bourgeois.eu/aur_mooltipass_udev.git/tree/PKGBUILD [1] https://git.bourgeois.eu/aur_moolticute.git/tree/PKGBUILD#n12
participants (3)
-
Eli Schwartz
-
NicoHood
-
Quentin Bourgeois