[aur-general] AUR 4 package search doesn't work
Hi, when using the AUR 4 search machine for "Name, Description" or "Name" and "Out of Date All", the keyword "lightscribe" does find "4l", but it doesn't find "lightscribe" and "lightscribe-labeler". https://aur4.archlinux.org/packages/?O=0&K=lightscribe https://aur4.archlinux.org/packages/?O=0&SeB=nd&K=lightscribe&outdated=&SB=n&SO=a&PP=50&do_Search=Go Regards, Ralf Off-topic PS: Assumed for AUR 3 PKGBUILDs were available for 32-bit and 64-bit architecture, there were requests to make those split PKGBUILDs one for both architectures, does it make sense to provide the PKGBUILDs for AUR 4 with dropped 64-bit architecture and to provide 32-bit architecture only? We could argue that it's better somebody maintains 32-bit PKGBUILDs only, instead of completely dropping software, OTOH Arch claims to support 32-bit and 64-bit architecture and it looks like a step backwards to provide 32-bit architecture and to drop the newer 64-bit architecture. https://aur4.archlinux.org/packages/lightscribe/ https://aur4.archlinux.org/packages/lightscribe-labeler/ https://aur4.archlinux.org/packages/4l/
* Ralf Mardorf <info.mardorf@rocketmail.com> (Sun, 5 Jul 2015 21:08:00 +0200):
when using the AUR 4 search machine for "Name, Description" or "Name" and "Out of Date All", the keyword "lightscribe" does find "4l", but it doesn't find "lightscribe" and "lightscribe-labeler".
The latter two are not in AUR4 yet, so package search doesn't find them. 4l has lightscribe in its description.
Assumed for AUR 3 PKGBUILDs were available for 32-bit and 64-bit architecture, there were requests to make those split PKGBUILDs one for both architectures, does it make sense to provide the PKGBUILDs for AUR 4 with dropped 64-bit architecture and to provide 32-bit architecture only?
We could argue that it's better somebody maintains 32-bit PKGBUILDs only, instead of completely dropping software, OTOH Arch claims to support 32-bit and 64-bit architecture and it looks like a step backwards to provide 32-bit architecture and to drop the newer 64-bit architecture.
You can (and should) use separate source arrays, nowadays, so what do you mean by split packages? Best, Marcel
On Sun, 5 Jul 2015 21:25:59 +0200, Marcel Korpel wrote:
* Ralf Mardorf <info.mardorf@rocketmail.com> (Sun, 5 Jul 2015 21:08:00 +0200):
when using the AUR 4 search machine for "Name, Description" or "Name" and "Out of Date All", the keyword "lightscribe" does find "4l", but it doesn't find "lightscribe" and "lightscribe-labeler".
The latter two are not in AUR4 yet, so package search doesn't find them. 4l has lightscribe in its description.
When I searched for the packages they were in AUR 4, but the search engine didn't find them, that#s why I provided the links: On Sun, 5 Jul 2015 21:08:00 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
https://aur4.archlinux.org/packages/lightscribe/ https://aur4.archlinux.org/packages/lightscribe-labeler/ https://aur4.archlinux.org/packages/4l/ ^^^^ AUR4
Assumed for AUR 3 PKGBUILDs were available for 32-bit and 64-bit architecture, there were requests to make those split PKGBUILDs one for both architectures, does it make sense to provide the PKGBUILDs for AUR 4 with dropped 64-bit architecture and to provide 32-bit architecture only?
We could argue that it's better somebody maintains 32-bit PKGBUILDs only, instead of completely dropping software, OTOH Arch claims to support 32-bit and 64-bit architecture and it looks like a step backwards to provide 32-bit architecture and to drop the newer 64-bit architecture.
You can (and should) use separate source arrays, nowadays, so what do you mean by split packages?
Will AUR 4 provide some PKGBUILDs only for 32-bit architecture and drop to continue providing those PKGBUILDs with multi-libs for 64-bit architecture too? Assumed the maintainers decide to drop 64-bit support?
* Ralf Mardorf <info.mardorf@rocketmail.com> (Sun, 5 Jul 2015 23:59:01 +0200):
https://aur4.archlinux.org/packages/lightscribe/ https://aur4.archlinux.org/packages/lightscribe-labeler/ https://aur4.archlinux.org/packages/4l/ ^^^^ AUR4
The first two are not yet uploaded to AUR4, that's why the search engine can't find them. Try to look at the PKGBUILD, you'll get an error.
You can (and should) use separate source arrays, nowadays, so what do you mean by split packages?
Will AUR 4 provide some PKGBUILDs only for 32-bit architecture and drop to continue providing those PKGBUILDs with multi-libs for 64-bit architecture too? Assumed the maintainers decide to drop 64-bit support?
I still think I don't understand you, but that may be my fault, I'm really tired due to a very busy weekend. But which packages are uploaded and which architectures are supported is fully up to the maintainers. If a package isn't re-uploaded to AUR4, you can do this from July 8th onward (when packages are no longer reserved to the AUR3 maintainer). Best, Marcel
On Mon, 6 Jul 2015 00:15:35 +0200, Marcel Korpel wrote:
* Ralf Mardorf (Sun, 5 Jul 2015 23:59:01 +0200):
https://aur4.archlinux.org/packages/lightscribe/ https://aur4.archlinux.org/packages/lightscribe-labeler/ https://aur4.archlinux.org/packages/4l/
The first two are not yet uploaded to AUR4, that's why the search engine can't find them. Try to look at the PKGBUILD, you'll get an error.
Sorry, I missed that. Hopefully this is only possible during the transition from AUR3 to AUR4.
I still think I don't understand you
I'll rephrase it, assumed I still need an answer, when the transition from AUR3 to AUR4 is finished. Regards, Ralf
On 05/07, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
On Sun, 5 Jul 2015 21:25:59 +0200, Marcel Korpel wrote:
* Ralf Mardorf <info.mardorf@rocketmail.com> (Sun, 5 Jul 2015 21:08:00 +0200):
when using the AUR 4 search machine for "Name, Description" or "Name" and "Out of Date All", the keyword "lightscribe" does find "4l", but it doesn't find "lightscribe" and "lightscribe-labeler".
The latter two are not in AUR4 yet, so package search doesn't find them. 4l has lightscribe in its description.
When I searched for the packages they were in AUR 4, but the search engine didn't find them, that#s why I provided the links:
No, they were never uploaded to AUR4. They are in the DB due to how the package migration works, but they were never uploaded to AUR4 and won't show up in the search until they are.
Assumed for AUR 3 PKGBUILDs were available for 32-bit and 64-bit architecture, there were requests to make those split PKGBUILDs one for both architectures, does it make sense to provide the PKGBUILDs for AUR 4 with dropped 64-bit architecture and to provide 32-bit architecture only?
We could argue that it's better somebody maintains 32-bit PKGBUILDs only, instead of completely dropping software, OTOH Arch claims to support 32-bit and 64-bit architecture and it looks like a step backwards to provide 32-bit architecture and to drop the newer 64-bit architecture.
You can (and should) use separate source arrays, nowadays, so what do you mean by split packages?
Will AUR 4 provide some PKGBUILDs only for 32-bit architecture and drop to continue providing those PKGBUILDs with multi-libs for 64-bit architecture too?
AUR4 provides a service. What users upload to it, it doesn't care about. And packages should build on 32-bit and 64-bit, whether as a lib32 package or not.
Assumed the maintainers decide to drop 64-bit support?
That sentence doesn't make any sense. -- Sincerely, Johannes Löthberg PGP Key ID: 0x50FB9B273A9D0BB5 https://theos.kyriasis.com/~kyrias/
participants (3)
-
Johannes Löthberg
-
Marcel Korpel
-
Ralf Mardorf