On Sat, 8 Aug 2015 15:01:34 +0200 Simon Hanna wrote:

...

Will the aur4 url still be working, or do I have to update my git push urls? A quick fetch should have told you it's working. However, I'd change the urls nontheless since it might be dropped sometime

Just so I understand, what change exactly must be done and where? -- Νῖκος Θεοδώρου «Ἀγεωμέτρητος μηδεὶς εἰσίτω!»

Den 08-08-2015 kl. 15:38 skrev Rodolphe Breard:

On 08/08/2015 03:01 PM, Simon Hanna wrote:

...

However, I'd change the urls nontheless since it might be dropped sometime

Or, instead of replacing URLs, you can add the deprecated one as an alias in your ~/.ssh/config :

...

Host aur.archlinux.org aur4.archlinux.org Hostname aur.archlinux.org

This will only work for SSH URLs though. If you have cloned repositories locally via HTTPS (e.g., you're not the maintainer and you have some local tweaks you're doing to the package), you will have to git remote set-url origin https://aur.archlinux.org/$pkgbase.git/ in those repositories (replacing “$pkgbase”). -- Namasté, Frederik “Freso” S. Olesen https://freso.dk/ AUR: https://aur.archlinux.org/account/Freso Wiki: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/User:Freso

On Sat, 8 Aug 2015 15:14:14 +0200 Jakub Klinkovský wrote:

On 08.08.15 at 13:42, Lukas Fleischer wrote:

...

Hello,

We are pleased to announce that aurweb 4.0.0 has been released. The official aurweb setup [1] has already been updated.

The most exciting change in this release is that Git repositories are now used for AUR packages. This new feature comes along with some other nice additions, such as an SSH interface for registered AUR users.

For a comprehensive list of changes, please consult the Git log [2]. As usual, bugs should be reported to the aurweb bug tracker [3].

[1] https://aur.archlinux.org/ [2] https://projects.archlinux.org/aurweb.git/log/?id=v4.0.0 [3] https://bugs.archlinux.org/index.php?project=2

As far as I remember, it was discussed that the old packages from AUR3 will still be available in an archive. Is it the aur-mirror.git [4] or something else? We were thinking to replace the currently broken links to AUR packages on the wiki with links to the archive to divide the heap of broken links into "obsolete" and "obsolete, but still findable" parts. For this to work, we need a fixed URL with variable part corresponding to the package name. And for easy maintenance with a bot, we would need a list of packages in the archive for fast searching, e.g. something like [5]. Is this possible or do you have some other recommendations?

[4] http://pkgbuild.com/git/aur-mirror.git/ [5] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.gz

Lukas is on vacation. Give him a chance to get back and take a look at things.

On 09/08, Lukas Fleischer wrote:

On Sat, 08 Aug 2015 at 15:14:14, Jakub Klinkovský wrote:

...

[...] As far as I remember, it was discussed that the old packages from AUR3 will still be available in an archive. Is it the aur-mirror.git [4] or something else? We were thinking to replace the currently broken links to AUR packages on the wiki with links to the archive to divide the heap of broken links into "obsolete" and "obsolete, but still findable" parts. For this to work, we need a fixed URL with variable part corresponding to the package name. And for easy maintenance with a bot, we would need a list of packages in the archive for fast searching, e.g. something like [5]. Is this possible or do you have some other recommendations?

After all, I am not sure whether we should create an official archive hosted on aur.archlinux.org or just refer to an "inofficial" archive like aur-mirror.git. As Doug already mentioned, I am currently on vacation. I will have to think of that (and possibly implement an archive) when I am back home. Meanwhile, other opinions are welcome.

If you plan to redirect broken Arch Wiki links to the archive, please make sure that it is obvious that these packages are abandoned. They are likely to break or be out-of-date for months.

Could maybe make the tarballs available under sources.archlinux.org for maybe a month or two I guess, or something like aur.archlinux.org/archives. -- Sincerely, Johannes Löthberg PGP Key ID: 0x50FB9B273A9D0BB5 https://theos.kyriasis.com/~kyrias/

On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 5:17 PM, Mauro Santos wrote:

It would be nice to have an official archive, some packages do not have a maintainer but still work fine

If you care about them, upload them to aur4, if you don't care, no need for an aur archive ;-)

Em 09-08-2015 18:43, Mauro Santos escreveu:

Caring is relative, you might not care now but next week/month/year you may need it and then you care ;)

Well, if you need in the future, perhaps you will create a new PKGBUILD then? Relying in unmaintained packaged will most likely give you trouble. I personally think that an official archive isn't needed. It will only confuse users, and might also give the impression that Archlinux endorses it's use (not that it endorses AUR, anyway). Have said that, I had to upload 2 packages to the new AUR because the original maintainers weren't reachable and didn't uploaded then before the July 8th deadline. At the moment we have only 23 orphan packages in AUR. Let's keep things that way. Cheers, Giancarlo Razzolini

On 2015-08-10 19:07, Damian Nowak wrote:

...

Well, if you need in the future, perhaps you will create a new PKGBUILD then? Relying in unmaintained packaged will most likely give you trouble.

I can't agree with that. If I search for something next time and it's not in AUR4, I'd go to AUR3, get the old PKGBUILD, update it, make sure it works, and then upload to AUR4 so others can use it too. Better than writing from scratch.

I agree with this. In fact, this is how I recently 'rescued' a couple orphaned packages from aur3 before it went offline. I was very grateful to have a working PKGBUILD to start from. In one case, it wasn't up to date, but at least I had something to start from. With that in mind, I think a static, read-only copy of the latest state of AUR3 would be a valuable resource, at least for a while. It doesn't _have_ to be permanent, does it? Maybe keep it around for a year or two? -- Chris

Em 10-08-2015 20:07, Damian Nowak escreveu:

I can't agree with that. If I search for something next time and it's not in AUR4, I'd go to AUR3, get the old PKGBUILD, update it, make sure it works, and then upload to AUR4 so others can use it too. Better than writing from scratch. Well,

In most cases having a PKGBUILD as a starting point surely is nice. I just think that it shouldn't be an official Archlinux thing. Also, there were a lot of bad PKGBUILD's that wouldn't serve as a starting point for anything. The main purpose of the purge was to get rid of orphan and unmaintained packages anyway. I guess that if all of the Arch users didn't needed them in more than the two months that it took to migrate AUR3 to AUR4, it is a safe bet to say that there won't be much use for them in the near future. And, if there is an unofficial archive, it's ok. But I think that Archlinux shouldn't spend resources on an official one. Cheers, Giancarlo Razzolini

Em 11-08-2015 02:58, Oon-Ee Ng escreveu:

Just to note on this point - some (many?) Arch users would not have noticed anything during the migration process as their helpers would have continued to get the old PKGBUILDs from aur.archlinux.org during the migration process. It is only when aur4 got 'moved' to aur.archlinux.org that these users would have noticed anything happen (in fact some still won't, depending on their workflow and the specific tools they use).

Yes, most users didn't noticed. And probably won't. But, I believe that a fair share of users was aware of the migration, given the feedback I received on my own packages during the transition. I'd say about 30-35%. Perhaps the admins of the site can get some of the statistics of their analytics and shed some light on this.

I have no opinion in either case, PKGBUILDs aren't THAT difficult to write, but felt I had to point this out.

There are some ones, with patches and all sort of changes, that are harder to write. In those cases it helps to have the PKGBUILD (and patches) at hand. Again, I'm not against them being somewhere, perhaps an all in one github repo. Cheers, Giancarlo Razzolini