[aur-requests] [PRQ#3328] Deletion Request for exfalso
ArchangeGabriel [1] filed a deletion request for exfalso [2]: I need to reupload this package with a pkgbase (quodlibet) variable, and AFAIK, this goes through removal of the existing package. Thanks. [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/ArchangeGabriel/ [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/exfalso/
On 17/05, notify@aur.archlinux.org wrote:
ArchangeGabriel [1] filed a deletion request for exfalso [2]:
I need to reupload this package with a pkgbase (quodlibet) variable, and AFAIK, this goes through removal of the existing package.
Could you upload a quodlibet package without the exfalso split package in it and then request a merge if you want the new package to keep the votes and comments? -- Sincerely, Johannes Löthberg PGP Key ID: 0x50FB9B273A9D0BB5 https://theos.kyriasis.com/~kyrias/
On 17/05, Johannes Löthberg wrote:
On 17/05, notify@aur.archlinux.org wrote:
ArchangeGabriel [1] filed a deletion request for exfalso [2]:
I need to reupload this package with a pkgbase (quodlibet) variable, and AFAIK, this goes through removal of the existing package.
Could you upload a quodlibet package without the exfalso split package in it and then request a merge if you want the new package to keep the votes and comments?
Actually, scratch that, you won't be able to upload a quodlibet package because it exists in the repos and the repo package has exfalso in it. Is there anything different at all in this package? -- Sincerely, Johannes Löthberg PGP Key ID: 0x50FB9B273A9D0BB5 https://theos.kyriasis.com/~kyrias/
Le 17/05/2015 23:45, Johannes Löthberg a écrit :
On 17/05, Johannes Löthberg wrote:
On 17/05, notify@aur.archlinux.org wrote:
ArchangeGabriel [1] filed a deletion request for exfalso [2]:
I need to reupload this package with a pkgbase (quodlibet) variable, and AFAIK, this goes through removal of the existing package.
Could you upload a quodlibet package without the exfalso split package in it and then request a merge if you want the new package to keep the votes and comments?
Actually, scratch that, you won't be able to upload a quodlibet package because it exists in the repos and the repo package has exfalso in it. Is there anything different at all in this package?
Indeed. It’s exfalso without quodlibet (I only use the former, and a lot of other people too), another way to do this would be splitting the repo package into four (or more, if splitting l10n): – /quodlibet/ – /exfalso/ – /quodlibet-libs/, on which one the previous two should depends – /quodlibet-l10n/ with /usr/share/locale files (and, as said above, eventually split that one for each locale) Should I open a bug against quodlibet packaging on Arch? Thanks, Bruno
On 17/05, Bruno Pagani wrote:
Indeed. It’s exfalso without quodlibet (I only use the former, and a lot of other people too), another way to do this would be splitting the repo package into four (or more, if splitting l10n):
– /quodlibet/ – /exfalso/ – /quodlibet-libs/, on which one the previous two should depends – /quodlibet-l10n/ with /usr/share/locale files (and, as said above, eventually split that one for each locale)
Should I open a bug against quodlibet packaging on Arch?
You could, but I doubt it would be done. It's not really the arch way to split packages. -- Sincerely, Johannes Löthberg PGP Key ID: 0x50FB9B273A9D0BB5 https://theos.kyriasis.com/~kyrias/
Le 18/05/2015 00:12, Johannes Löthberg a écrit :
On 17/05, Bruno Pagani wrote:
Indeed. It’s exfalso without quodlibet (I only use the former, and a lot of other people too), another way to do this would be splitting the repo package into four (or more, if splitting l10n):
– /quodlibet/ – /exfalso/ – /quodlibet-libs/, on which one the previous two should depends – /quodlibet-l10n/ with /usr/share/locale files (and, as said above, eventually split that one for each locale)
Should I open a bug against quodlibet packaging on Arch?
You could, but I doubt it would be done. It's not really the arch way to split packages.
As a matter of fact, such a request (split exfalso from quodlibet) was already made before (https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/32338), and was rejected because exfalso has to depends on most of the libs from quodlibet. However, the two packages don’t have the same dependencies, and that’s why a split package make sense to me. Should I reopen the the issue or continue with my AUR package? Thanks, Bruno
El 17/05/2015 a las 4:52 p. m., Bruno Pagani escribió:
Le 17/05/2015 23:45, Johannes Löthberg a écrit :
On 17/05, Johannes Löthberg wrote:
On 17/05, notify@aur.archlinux.org wrote:
ArchangeGabriel [1] filed a deletion request for exfalso [2]:
I need to reupload this package with a pkgbase (quodlibet) variable, and AFAIK, this goes through removal of the existing package.
Could you upload a quodlibet package without the exfalso split package in it and then request a merge if you want the new package to keep the votes and comments?
Actually, scratch that, you won't be able to upload a quodlibet package because it exists in the repos and the repo package has exfalso in it. Is there anything different at all in this package?
Indeed. It’s exfalso without quodlibet (I only use the former, and a lot of other people too), another way to do this would be splitting the repo package into four (or more, if splitting l10n):
...
Should I open a bug against quodlibet packaging on Arch?
As Johannes Lothberg pointed out, not the Arch way. If it happens, is the exception that confirms the rule. I have not examined the source code, but considering that Python is so flexible about namespaces, you could even manage to make it coexist with the repo package by renaming the executable script, perhaps renaming the main library entry point and do some sed magic in a couple of files in the package() section of your PKGBUILD.
Request #3328 has been rejected by Muflone [1]: First of all are you sure you want to lose all the votes the exfalso package has? After deletion there's no way to restore them. Apart that, from your request you seem to want upload a package (pkgbase) named quodlibet, which is in conflict with the extra/quodlibet package. Please see: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_packaging_standards#AUR_packages https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_User_Repository [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/Muflone/
Le 18/05/2015 00:01, notify@aur.archlinux.org a écrit :
Request #3328 has been rejected by Muflone [1]:
First of all are you sure you want to lose all the votes the exfalso package has? After deletion there's no way to restore them.
Apart that, from your request you seem to want upload a package (pkgbase) named quodlibet, which is in conflict with the extra/quodlibet package. Please see: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_packaging_standards#AUR_packages https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_User_Repository
I know that I can’t upload quodlibet since it’s already in extra, here I only use quodlibet in $pkgbase. I thought this was an appropriate use of the $pkgbase var (according to https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/PKGBUILD#pkgbase). For instance, I use this for krita too (https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/krita/), where the pkg differs from calligra-krita because it doesn’t depends on calligra-libs and calligra-filters (thus avoiding pulling in kdepim), since only the relevant ones for Krita are built(-in). I’m going to open an feature request against quodlibet packaging, and will comme back here when I have an answer for the future of this package. Thanks, Bruno
Hi
I know that I can’t upload quodlibet since it’s already in extra, here I only use quodlibet in $pkgbase. I thought this was an appropriate use of the $pkgbase var (according to https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/PKGBUILD#pkgbase).
the pkgbase variable is used to group a set of **source packages** under a single PKGBUILD. Btw an AUR package (here I refer to pkgname and pkgbase as well) name must never clash with another package included in the official repositories. There's no point to use a pkgbase for a single package, which in turn is named in a different way. Just remove the pkgbase='quodlibet' to your PKGBUILD.
For instance, I use this for krita too (https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/krita/), where the pkg differs from calligra-krita because it doesn’t depends on calligra-libs and calligra-filters (thus avoiding pulling in kdepim), since only the relevant ones for Krita are built(-in).
The same applies to krita package. Why do you use the caligra pkgbase if you only build the krita package? Your PKGBUILD doesn't build a couple of packages but only krita. Then simply remove the pkgbase='caligra' and use only pkgname='krita' instead. Regards -- Fabio Castelli aka Muflone
participants (5)
-
"Pedro A. López-Valencia"
-
Bruno Pagani
-
Johannes Löthberg
-
Muflone
-
notify＠aur.archlinux.org