[aur-requests] [PRQ#18055] Deletion Request for uperm
eschwartz [1] filed a deletion request for uperm [2]: self-published shellscript with no votes. After extensively reading the source I sort of think *maybe* it's supposed to chown+chgrp+chmod a file/directory all at once, but it ha a super vague pkgdesc, unhelpful --help, and you can just use chown/chmod/chgrp directly with less bother. It definitely does not meet the guidelines for "useful to more than one person". The main problem, though, is that this installs itself directly to /opt using sudo. [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/eschwartz/ [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/uperm/
Not that I care about the package itself but most of the criticisms laid out are subjective. Nothing listed above is explicitly laid out in the guidelines for user-packages: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Unofficial_user_repositories#Adding_you... Unless I'm missing something, /opt is intended for user programs. If you have a better idea of where it should be, I'd love to hear it, but again, not inherently a valid reason for removal. All the best, Dmitri McGuckin On Sun, Feb 23, 2020 at 4:42 PM <notify@aur.archlinux.org> wrote:
eschwartz [1] filed a deletion request for uperm [2]:
self-published shellscript with no votes. After extensively reading the source I sort of think *maybe* it's supposed to chown+chgrp+chmod a file/directory all at once, but it ha a super vague pkgdesc, unhelpful --help, and you can just use chown/chmod/chgrp directly with less bother. It definitely does not meet the guidelines for "useful to more than one person".
The main problem, though, is that this installs itself directly to /opt using sudo.
[1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/eschwartz/ [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/uperm/
On 2/23/20 8:10 PM, Dmitri McGuckin wrote:
Not that I care about the package itself but most of the criticisms laid out are subjective.
Nothing listed above is explicitly laid out in the guidelines for user-packages: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Unofficial_user_repositories#Adding_you...
You're looking at the wrong page, the AUR is governed by https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/AUR_submission_guidelines#Rules_of_subm...
Unless I'm missing something, /opt is intended for user programs. If you have a better idea of where it should be, I'd love to hear it, but again, not inherently a valid reason for removal.
Incorrect, /opt is intended for things which are self-contained rather than following the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard (i.e. they don't fit neatly into bin/ include/ lib/ and share/ directories). Shellscripts can and do get installed to /usr/bin all the time. But, this is not the issue that I mentioned. The issue that I mentioned is that the PKGBUILD will sudo install the file to /opt, and then makepkg will create an empty package. You can pacman -S uperm or pacman -R uperm and it doesn't make a difference, because the software consists of untracked files copied to /opt before the package was created. PKGBUILDs must install their files to "${pkgdir}/opt" or "${pkgdir}/usr" and NOT to /opt or /usr ... ... or else they are not even a package in the first place. See https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Creating_packages#package() -- Eli Schwartz Bug Wrangler and Trusted User
I recall this page was in fact the one I saw when I made this. It does not outline what you prescribed. If it did, I would have followed it. I understand the bit about sudo for installation but installation is not why it's listed as a dependency. It's listed as a dependency because sudo can be used alongside the program itself for reasons relating to order of use of chown, etc. Though if I did use it in the install that's because admittedly I am new to making pkgbuilds. Advice is appreciated if you have some to offer, but the official guide(s) across the Arch wiki doesn't mandate a specific pattern of installation. So again, much if not all of your criticism is not reason enough for removal. All the best, Dmitri McGuckin On Sun, Feb 23, 2020 at 8:23 PM Eli Schwartz <eschwartz@archlinux.org> wrote:
On 2/23/20 8:10 PM, Dmitri McGuckin wrote:
Not that I care about the package itself but most of the criticisms laid out are subjective.
Nothing listed above is explicitly laid out in the guidelines for user-packages:
https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Unofficial_user_repositories#Adding_you...
You're looking at the wrong page, the AUR is governed by
https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/AUR_submission_guidelines#Rules_of_subm...
Unless I'm missing something, /opt is intended for user programs. If you have a better idea of where it should be, I'd love to hear it, but again, not inherently a valid reason for removal.
Incorrect, /opt is intended for things which are self-contained rather than following the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard (i.e. they don't fit neatly into bin/ include/ lib/ and share/ directories).
Shellscripts can and do get installed to /usr/bin all the time.
But, this is not the issue that I mentioned. The issue that I mentioned is that the PKGBUILD will sudo install the file to /opt, and then makepkg will create an empty package. You can pacman -S uperm or pacman -R uperm and it doesn't make a difference, because the software consists of untracked files copied to /opt before the package was created.
PKGBUILDs must install their files to "${pkgdir}/opt" or "${pkgdir}/usr" and NOT to /opt or /usr ...
... or else they are not even a package in the first place.
See https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Creating_packages#package()
-- Eli Schwartz Bug Wrangler and Trusted User
Request #18055 has been accepted by Alad [1]. [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/Alad/
participants (3)
-
Dmitri McGuckin
-
Eli Schwartz
-
notify＠aur.archlinux.org