[aur-general] AUR Best Practice for New Package Upload
Hi, makepkg now seems to build the .pkg.tar.xz archives for pacman to install, naming them as such: masshash-1.0.0-1-any.pkg.tar.xz I have not seen the "any" in the name before. I can see how the 1.0.0 is the version number and the -1 is the release number; fine. Why is there an "any" in the name? What parameter is it referring to and should it even be there? How can I remove this any so the package is called masshash-1.0.0-1.pkg.tar.xz (assuming that is how it should be/is more proper). Just trying to understand the "ins and outs" of making AUR packages. Thanks.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 Hello Stef, That is the architecture the package was built for. Mit freundlichen Grüßen/Regards, Noel Kuntze GPG Key ID: 0x63EC6658 Fingerprint: 23CA BB60 2146 05E7 7278 6592 3839 298F 63EC 6658 Am 23.09.2014 um 19:52 schrieb stef204:
Hi,
makepkg now seems to build the .pkg.tar.xz archives for pacman to install, naming them as such: masshash-1.0.0-1-any.pkg.tar.xz
I have not seen the "any" in the name before. I can see how the 1.0.0 is the version number and the -1 is the release number; fine. Why is there an "any" in the name? What parameter is it referring to and should it even be there? How can I remove this any so the package is called masshash-1.0.0-1.pkg.tar.xz (assuming that is how it should be/is more proper).
Just trying to understand the "ins and outs" of making AUR packages.
Thanks.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJUIbPSAAoJEDg5KY9j7GZYs3kP/iGBpHqhNUpYBiyfY+17ICO5 JJ0lkJNJEq2LCg1Eq22NV8LR7CU2RZvrCF5huXJ+vzP12W7AsBfWDRd8/o5zyZDw bghjM4Z+VmIf+PiPdRfmILMAmZzsWG2FdwB5q0vnplOHlS0Q3awMaCjsp2OHc3x6 l/QltN9Yp7OD5kO9ALeACr4eG+CqjKUXnvsZI7BIg9stc/H3N4QQ7VsiA35aAIV0 p8UBpY/Ky+/qPQV9tt92C2uib2j5tJpWg3Lk1bwIqP8WtkYGJkMifVVB4nhuJU6Q Nb/yGk4Brgq15UMI5VHe5Gf0V4uBNlLXKVV64lk+J9frimRcwPkTuc1y1UA9Hlek TAdVarB6/m16oPH1qDeiOtnQQXJzpFJlZbG79xZpiubSsi6u7tyFgad/4pDEFzCy LCAkbsiAx+Ul4cLcQGMrghGVNirclYnM1KlyTvL7aFCvioax3o+uxjJ7fbnM47z9 +1jrQ1yquWt0YDBGUSG7owj/PjM+AkabhqV99qu9c3vZRArokR8MM45bvPq0/ewo 18XBVuzhZtVKWd2dAl/ytGfJdXDeAoJ2xPuBNM49cRgyrdwpDXQHUtNcPo/zcJXr NopJuVNVLnoD0BDGydqIECr2pQMyh9Mo21Vt7b33HhkHvINO1chT26QvYZauu4d6 0V4B0SqoW8PnXn5jBctX =sA3/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
23.09.2014, 11:55, "Noel Kuntze" <noel@familie-kuntze.de>:
Hello Stef,
That is the architecture the package was built for.
=========== Yes, I realized that as soon as I sent the message ..... I just sent a follow up and our posts just crossed actually.... Thanks.
Since 'any' is the architecture of the package, why isn't there a folder called 'any' in the repo? I can see only 'i686' and 'x86_64' in repo 'core', 'extra' and 'community', and all of the 'any'-architecture packages are put into both 'i686' and 'x86_64' folders. Hope for your reply! Yours, 2014-09-24 1:54 GMT+08:00 Noel Kuntze <noel@familie-kuntze.de>:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
Hello Stef,
That is the architecture the package was built for.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen/Regards, Noel Kuntze
GPG Key ID: 0x63EC6658 Fingerprint: 23CA BB60 2146 05E7 7278 6592 3839 298F 63EC 6658 Am 23.09.2014 um 19:52 schrieb stef204:
Hi,
makepkg now seems to build the .pkg.tar.xz archives for pacman to install, naming them as such: masshash-1.0.0-1-any.pkg.tar.xz
I have not seen the "any" in the name before. I can see how the 1.0.0 is the version number and the -1 is the release number; fine. Why is there an "any" in the name? What parameter is it referring to and should it even be there? How can I remove this any so the package is called masshash-1.0.0-1.pkg.tar.xz (assuming that is how it should be/is more proper).
Just trying to understand the "ins and outs" of making AUR packages.
Thanks.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2
iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJUIbPSAAoJEDg5KY9j7GZYs3kP/iGBpHqhNUpYBiyfY+17ICO5 JJ0lkJNJEq2LCg1Eq22NV8LR7CU2RZvrCF5huXJ+vzP12W7AsBfWDRd8/o5zyZDw bghjM4Z+VmIf+PiPdRfmILMAmZzsWG2FdwB5q0vnplOHlS0Q3awMaCjsp2OHc3x6 l/QltN9Yp7OD5kO9ALeACr4eG+CqjKUXnvsZI7BIg9stc/H3N4QQ7VsiA35aAIV0 p8UBpY/Ky+/qPQV9tt92C2uib2j5tJpWg3Lk1bwIqP8WtkYGJkMifVVB4nhuJU6Q Nb/yGk4Brgq15UMI5VHe5Gf0V4uBNlLXKVV64lk+J9frimRcwPkTuc1y1UA9Hlek TAdVarB6/m16oPH1qDeiOtnQQXJzpFJlZbG79xZpiubSsi6u7tyFgad/4pDEFzCy LCAkbsiAx+Ul4cLcQGMrghGVNirclYnM1KlyTvL7aFCvioax3o+uxjJ7fbnM47z9 +1jrQ1yquWt0YDBGUSG7owj/PjM+AkabhqV99qu9c3vZRArokR8MM45bvPq0/ewo 18XBVuzhZtVKWd2dAl/ytGfJdXDeAoJ2xPuBNM49cRgyrdwpDXQHUtNcPo/zcJXr NopJuVNVLnoD0BDGydqIECr2pQMyh9Mo21Vt7b33HhkHvINO1chT26QvYZauu4d6 0V4B0SqoW8PnXn5jBctX =sA3/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Wed, 2014-09-24 at 09:28 +0800, Fernando Gilberto Pereira da Silva wrote:
Since 'any' is the architecture of the package, why isn't there a folder called 'any' in the repo? I can see only 'i686' and 'x86_64' in repo 'core', 'extra' and 'community', and all of the 'any'-architecture packages are put into both 'i686' and 'x86_64' folders.
People might use 32-bit architecture or 64-bit architecture, there isn't an "any" architecture. The "any" only refers to the content of a package. The content isn't compiled to work on 32-bit or 64-bit architecture, e.g. a dash script, so it can be used on both architectures, ergo a package that can be used for "any" architecture, needs to be put to the 32-bit and to the 64-bit architecture repository. A repository for "any" doesn't make sense.
2014-09-24 12:50 GMT+08:00, Ralf Mardorf <info.mardorf@rocketmail.com>:
On Wed, 2014-09-24 at 09:28 +0800, Fernando Gilberto Pereira da Silva wrote:
Since 'any' is the architecture of the package, why isn't there a folder called 'any' in the repo? I can see only 'i686' and 'x86_64' in repo 'core', 'extra' and 'community', and all of the 'any'-architecture packages are put into both 'i686' and 'x86_64' folders.
People might use 32-bit architecture or 64-bit architecture, there isn't an "any" architecture. The "any" only refers to the content of a package. The content isn't compiled to work on 32-bit or 64-bit architecture, e.g. a dash script, so it can be used on both architectures, ergo a package that can be used for "any" architecture, needs to be put to the 32-bit and to the 64-bit architecture repository. A repository for "any" doesn't make sense.
I think it makes sense in some case. Firstly, if I wish to create a personal repository manually, I don't need to copy an "any"-architecture package to both folders("i686" and "x86_64"), or link to both folders and then execute repo-add twice in both folders. What's more, some other unofficial architecture like "archlinuxarm" or "archlinuxppc" could also use those "any"-architecture package by just adding the "any" folder.(Though it may make a mess of it) In a word, keep only two folders("i686" and "x86_64") for the official repository and allow users to create their personal repositories with three folders("i686", "x86_64" and "any) would be a compromise solution.
23.09.2014, 11:53, "stef204" <stef204@yandex.com>:
Hi,
makepkg now seems to build the .pkg.tar.xz archives for pacman to install, naming them as such: masshash-1.0.0-1-any.pkg.tar.xz
I have not seen the "any" in the name before. I can see how the 1.0.0 is the version number and the -1 is the release number; fine. Why is there an "any" in the name? What parameter is it referring to and should it even be there? How can I remove this any so the package is called masshash-1.0.0-1.pkg.tar.xz (assuming that is how it should be/is more proper).
Just trying to understand the "ins and outs" of making AUR packages.
Thanks.
Sorry, this "any" obviously refers to the architecture. So the naming "masshash-1.0.0-1-any.pkg.tar.xz" is actually proper and as it should be, I can imagine. Some changes were made recently to makepkg ? I don't recall seeing this type of naming previously.....
23.09.2014, 12:04, "stef204" <stef204@yandex.com>:
Sorry, this "any" obviously refers to the architecture. So the naming "masshash-1.0.0-1-any.pkg.tar.xz" is actually proper and as it should be, I can imagine. Some changes were made recently to makepkg ? I don't recall seeing this type of naming previously.....
Sorry again..... Answering my own question, no changes to makepkg version#, release# arch have been part of the naming of packages all along. I was just working on this a bit too quickly, and looking at the wrong file inside the directory which got my wires crossed.... I probably should apply the following rule more often, especially before posting: "Be sure brain is in gear before engaging mouth." (or keyboard, as the case ay be....)
participants (4)
-
Fernando Gilberto Pereira da Silva
-
Noel Kuntze
-
Ralf Mardorf
-
stef204