October 2018 - Aur-general - lists.archlinux.org

[aur-general] Automatic package version
by Shay Gover 26 Oct '18

26 Oct '18

Hi, I have a pakage in AUR that uses an automatic package versioning. I use a pkgver() and pkgrel(). However I just noticed that the package version in AUR is old. I checked the functions and everything is OK. Running makepkg gives the correct version. The package is: https://aur.archlinux.org/cgit/aur.git/tree/PKGBUILD?h=virtualbox-ck-modules Ideas? Thanks, Shay Gover

4 3

[aur-general] flood of package adoption emails
by Johannes Wienke 26 Oct '18

26 Oct '18

Dear all, yesterday I received about 10 email notifications that my package pass-git-helper-git was adopted by some random user, differing in each email. Yet, the web interface shows myself as the maintainer and I never opened the package for adoption. Does anyone know what is going on here? I can provide such an email for debugging purposes if necessary. Johannes

3 2

[aur-general] Fwd: Re: How do I show a AUR Rebuild as a newer build?
by hagar 23 Oct '18

23 Oct '18

This was my thought - then I came across Mythtv - epoch=1 pkgrel=5 pkgver=29.1 The docs say that pkgrel should be for changes in the packaging files. Because of the Maintainers increasing pkgrel I was considering increasing the pkgrel by 0.01 each new build. This would allow for 99 subsequent builds on each pkgrel. The docs say that it can be of type ver.subver. would this work? Thanks Macca On 20/10/18 9:42 am, Ralf Mardorf wrote: > On Sat, 20 Oct 2018 08:59:06 +0800, hagar … [View More]

8 22

[aur-general] How do I show a AUR Rebuild as a newer build?
by hagar 21 Oct '18

21 Oct '18

Good morning All, I understand that there are 3 version control tags in the PKGBUILD file. pkgver - The Actual Package version pkgrel - The Arch modification/release count - for changes to the patches, install file's. epoch - Special version control number. If I need to rebuild a package due to dependancy rebuilds/changes how do I mark the new package as newer? Do I increase the epoch? Or is there another way? Thanks Macca

4 4

[aur-general] Critique my pkgbuild
by Michael Straube 15 Oct '18

15 Oct '18

>Hello again, > >It took me a while to have some time, but I believe I have fixed all of the issues that were pointed out to me, with >some help from Scimmia and eschwartz. I think the package is in much more presentable shape, I have learned plenty, and >I fixed a lot of naive mistakes. Thanks everyone for the help. > >I would very much appreciate it if you would all take the time to read the latest PKGBUILD (from the git version of the >package) pasted below and see if … [View More]

1 0

[aur-general] Critique my pkgbuild
by Ethan Rakoff 15 Oct '18

15 Oct '18

I have submitted a package called threemawebqt to the aur (mostly for me, and some friends who use arch). It is a VERY simple thin client for a webapp using Qt. This is my first pkgbuild from scratch (and my first time working with Qt) so even though it is a super simple one, I would like some others to look at it and let me know what I'm doing wrong. Thanks! Here is the pkgbuild for easy reading: # Maintainer: Ethan Rakoff <ethan(a)ethanrakoff.com> pkgname=threemawebqt pkgver=0.1 … [View More]

4 6

Re: [aur-general] Questions about some of my packages being adopted in [community]
by Konstantin Gizdov 14 Oct '18

14 Oct '18

Hi all, Thanks for the comments and explanations. Firstly, I wanna say that I am not asking for special treatment or anything. Just wanted to discuss in detail what is going on. Secondly, a few comments stood out to me (in no particular order). I actually want to move the whole "root" tree, but considering its > number I just started with the easier "leaf" ones. This is what I suspected to be honest. The packages that were pulled were way too specific. Well, if you're going to do this, … [View More]then I'd like to have a conversation about it. (below) Regarding FS#60248 > Just release the python2 version of the package in the AUR. Sure, just wanted to be sure that's the expected approach. What original intention? Packages don't need to meet any intention. > They should be packaged acording to the guidelines Of course, they do - packages exist for a reason and the way they are packaged expresses the intention - feature support, type of build, structure, etc. All of that is beyond scope of packaging standards. This is fairly common -- while it is nice to get in touch with the AUR > maintainer, we hardly need *permission* to package something for the > repos. As always, you can report bugs with the official packages. I was not implying *permission* is needed, this is not the point - the point is letting people, who put their time in, know what's up. In any case, I listed this as an observation, hence the reason my email was prompted. Denied resolution? > ... > I fail to see how you're being "denied" anything. Call it what you want, I tried to re-open all 3 bugs but was denied with little to no comment/explanation. I wanted to know if python2 is going to be added by Felix or not - instead I was scolded at the bug and here in emails. The other bug is a bug as confirmed - also denied to re-open without explanation/investigation. The third bug was re-opened by Filipe after my initial email - no need to bash me further about it. So all bugs were closed & denied to re-open until I made a fuss about it here. That to me is 'denied'. Whatever we want. Of course, but not helpful. I'll explain. You don't get to act as some sort of concerned citizen here to protect > your packages from the incompetent Devs/TUs when your PKGBUILD contains > this junk. > (Sorry for being harsh, but this is the reaction you invite when you set > yourself up as the superior packager.) I am not pertaining to be a superior packager and I am not calling anyone incompetent. This is completely beside the point. I will explain below. But to address the state of this particular package - it was added 2 weeks ago in a rush to push a new version upstream, because I maintain my packages well. This package and another from same time around need a complete rewrite, which I'm aware of. And this particular style of package was copied from another [community] package a long time ago, things have changed as it was pointed out to me here in the AUR. I had intentions to fix it as soon as I had time. Picking out one package out of the whole stack, which I have not had time to properly deal with, proves nothing, but that you aim to shame, rather than to understand where I'm coming from, why I am worried and that I'm actually looking to be heard and help. That's a message I entered manually each time, with respect :) This was not a complaint. Thanks, that's actually the only clue I had my packages were going somewhere and not just randomly deleted. I believe that is not true. I even enabled more functionality in > libafterimage, actually. You mean when you removed `--disable-svg` flag? I might be wrong, but I think there was a reason to leave it disabled. You'd have to check comments or Gentoo/Fedora package to be sure. I do not intend to package the python2 variant. For the other two, I > have replied in the tasks. Thanks for making that clear. So to make all of this more clear to everyone. I took on the task to maintain CERN's ROOT a couple of years ago and since then I've involved myself heavily, I'm a contributor to the project and I use it daily in my work. Colleagues at CERN that use Arch Linux have been depending on me for this. I have enabled a lot of new features and worked with upstream to make even more functionality, bug fixes, etc. Currently, I am working on two new features with upstream, namely to allow for full build without internal dependencies, only external, and secondly for python2 and python3 simultaneous support. This is semi possible at the moment, but depends on me having the time to debug fully 3 packages - Pythia, XRootD & ROOT itself. On top of that I have shipped several other projects related to this for people that work on Arch Linux to be able to enjoy - Docker images, GitLab CIs, SciKit-HEP packages like uproot and so on. All of this is not a brag, it's not to say I am a better packager, and I am not asking for special attention. But what I want to make something clear - not all things can be said in a PKGBUILD. Packaging intentions matter and simply taking over packages without looking for/listening to the maintainer's comments may be detrimental. For example, the new features I worked to bring to the ROOT ecosystem and ones which I plan to work on in the future are obviously not part of my PKGBUILD. There's precedence for maintainers of specialized software in the AUR to be sponsored to become a Trusted User (though it seems there's a preexisting relationship?). I am not sure how much this applies to me in this case, but if it does I can say the following. I am willing to apply for a Trusted User to maintain ROOT's stack for Arch. I use the ROOT software on a daily basis. I take great care of the package (the whole stack actually) as my work depends on it. I have a test bench and people in my professional area use it and depend on me to bring improvements and new possibilities. I have involved myself and consider it an on-going duty. I have the skills and know-how to maintain the ROOT stack and I can say with certainty that AUR's ROOT package is only second to Fedora's package across other distros. But I also understand it is not perfect and am interested in making it better as I've shown previously here and to its users. If that is not an option, however, then I would like to say to Felix thanks for taking over and to take `root-extra` as the template for his package and drop all other variants. This was always the plan after a few things finally got merged upstream. I can go into detail privately. Regards, Konstantin On Sun, Sep 30, 2018 at 7:49 PM Konstantin Gizdov <arch(a)kge.pw> wrote: > Hi all, > > Thanks for the comments and explanations. > > Firstly, I wanna say that I am not asking for special treatment or > anything. Just wanted to discuss in detail what is going on. Secondly, a > few comments stood out to me (in no particular order). > > I actually want to move the whole "root" tree, but considering its >> number I just started with the easier "leaf" ones. > > This is what I suspected to be honest. The packages that were pulled were > way too specific. Well, if you're going to do this, then I'd like to have a > conversation about it. (below) > > Regarding FS#60248 >> Just release the python2 version of the package in the AUR. > > Sure, just wanted to be sure that's the expected approach. > > What original intention? Packages don't need to meet any intention. >> They should be packaged acording to the guidelines > > Of course, they do - packages exist for a reason and the way they are > packaged expresses the intention - feature support, type of build, > structure, etc. All of that is beyond scope of packaging standards. > > This is fairly common -- while it is nice to get in touch with the AUR >> maintainer, we hardly need *permission* to package something for the >> repos. As always, you can report bugs with the official packages. > > I was not implying *permission* is needed, this is not the point - the > point is letting people, who put their time in, know what's up. In any > case, I listed this as an observation, hence the reason my email was > prompted. > > Denied resolution? >> ... >> I fail to see how you're being "denied" anything. > > Call it what you want, I tried to re-open all 3 bugs but was denied with > little to no comment/explanation. I wanted to know if python2 is going to > be added by Felix or not - instead I was scolded at the bug and here in > emails. The other bug is a bug as confirmed - also denied to re-open > without explanation/investigation. The third bug was re-opened by Filipe > after my initial email - no need to bash me further about it. So all bugs > were closed & denied to re-open until I made a fuss about it here. That to > me is 'denied'. > > Whatever we want. > > Of course, but not helpful. I'll explain. > > You don't get to act as some sort of concerned citizen here to protect >> your packages from the incompetent Devs/TUs when your PKGBUILD contains >> this junk. >> (Sorry for being harsh, but this is the reaction you invite when you set >> yourself up as the superior packager.) > > I am not pertaining to be a superior packager and I am not calling anyone > incompetent. This is completely beside the point. I will explain below. But > to address the state of this particular package - it was added 2 weeks ago > in a rush to push a new version upstream, because I maintain my packages > well. This package and another from same time around need a complete > rewrite, which I'm aware of. And this particular style of package was > copied from another [community] package a long time ago, things have > changed as it was pointed out to me here in the AUR. I had intentions to > fix it as soon as I had time. Picking out one package out of the whole > stack, which I have not had time to properly deal with, proves nothing, but > that you aim to shame, rather than to understand where I'm coming from, why > I am worried and that I'm actually looking to be heard and help. > > That's a message I entered manually each time, with respect :) > > This was not a complaint. Thanks, that's actually the only clue I had my > packages were going somewhere and not just randomly deleted. > > I believe that is not true. I even enabled more functionality in >> libafterimage, actually. > > You mean when you removed `--disable-svg` flag? I might be wrong, but I > think there was a reason to leave it disabled. You'd have to check comments > or Gentoo/Fedora package to be sure. > > I do not intend to package the python2 variant. For the other two, I >> have replied in the tasks. > > Thanks for making that clear. > > So to make all of this more clear to everyone. I took on the task to > maintain CERN's ROOT a couple of years ago and since then I've involved > myself heavily, I'm a contributor to the project and I use it daily in my > work. Colleagues at CERN that use Arch Linux have been depending on me for > this. I have enabled a lot of new features and worked with upstream to make > even more functionality, bug fixes, etc. Currently, I am working on two new > features with upstream, namely to allow for full build without internal > dependencies, only external, and secondly for python2 and python3 > simultaneous support. This is semi possible at the moment, but depends on > me having the time to debug fully 3 packages - Pythia, XRootD & ROOT > itself. On top of that I have shipped several other projects related to > this for people that work on Arch Linux to be able to enjoy - Docker > images, GitLab CIs, SciKit-HEP packages like uproot and so on. > > All of this is not a brag, it's not to say I am a better packager, and I > am not asking for special attention. But what I want to make something > clear - not all things can be said in a PKGBUILD. Packaging intentions > matter and simply taking over packages without looking for/listening to the > maintainer's comments may be detrimental. For example, the new features I > worked to bring to the ROOT ecosystem and ones which I plan to work on in > the future are obviously not part of my PKGBUILD. > > There's precedence for maintainers of specialized software in the AUR to be > > sponsored to become a Trusted User (though it seems there's a preexisting > > relationship?). > > I am not sure how much this applies to me in this case, but if it does I > can say the following. I am willing to apply for a Trusted User to maintain > ROOT's stack for Arch. I use the ROOT software on a daily basis. I take > great care of the package (the whole stack actually) as my work depends on > it. I have a test bench and people in my professional area use it and > depend on me to bring improvements and new possibilities. I have involved > myself and consider it an on-going duty. I have the skills and know-how to > maintain the ROOT stack and I can say with certainty that AUR's ROOT > package is only second to Fedora's package across other distros. But I also > understand it is not perfect and am interested in making it better as I've > shown previously here and to its users. > > If that is not an option, however, then I would like to say to Felix > thanks for taking over and to take `root-extra` as the template for his > package and drop all other variants. This was always the plan after a few > things finally got merged upstream. I can go into detail privately. > > Regards, > Konstantin > > > > On Sun, Sep 30, 2018 at 6:16 AM Felix Yan <felixonmars(a)archlinux.org> > wrote: > >> On 9/30/18 3:57 AM, Konstantin Gizdov wrote: >> > 3. The packages do not provide the same functionality as before, but >> > conflict with the AUR ones. >> >> I believe that is not true. I even enabled more functionality in >> libafterimage, actually. >> >> > 4. I wasn't told anything - my AUR package was deleted with a 'thanks >> for >> > maintaining it' message. >> >> That's a message I entered manually each time, with respect :) >> >> > 5. I've reported a few bugs FS#6024{6,7,8}, but have been denied >> resolution. >> >> I do not intend to package the python2 variant. For the other two, I >> have replied in the tasks. >> >> > - Why? >> > - How many & which will be put into [community]? >> >> I actually want to move the whole "root" tree, but considering its >> number I just started with the easier "leaf" ones. >> >> > - How can I effectively communicate the nuts & bolts to the new >> > maintenaners so to say, to make sure users still get what's expected? >> >> By opening bugs or send me an email directly if it's urgent. >> >> Sorry for the confusion and late reply, it was very late in my TZ when I >> work on the packages. >> >> -- >> Regards, >> Felix Yan >> >> [View Less]

4 6

[aur-general] PKGBUILD for an .AppImage
by Tom Hale 14 Oct '18

14 Oct '18

I searched through the forums and can't find anything on packaging an AppImage. The only app referenced (upwork-appimage) is no longer available. The particular AppImage in question is: https://github.com/robert7/nixnote2/releases How do I search this mailing list online? What advice would you give with .AppImages? I *could* rip it open, but the only snag I hit was the binary is linked to `libhunspell-1.3.so.0` whereas Arch has `/usr/lib/libhunspell-1.6.so.0`. Would it be a no-no to … [View More]

5 8

[aur-general] Become TU
by Islam Bahnasy 13 Oct '18

13 Oct '18

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 Hello, I see that 'usbguard' is very useful tool and I depend on it my self so I hope if it's merged to the community repo. I never had a patch to any Arch project yet however I do have a lot of passion towards becoming a TU and maintaining usbguard. https://usbguard.github.io/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEEZTuDEAsuVmnVQRUQ10eBRotj8oQFAlvB8koACgkQ10eBRotj 8oQNKw//WIpNFGdOEqFCN6eKEr50XzleFZhAEkexa+iVq+gKxGyqwfnNRrXW+K2Q … [View More]

3 2

[aur-general] Greetings and Documentation Proposals
by Brett Cornwall 09 Oct '18

09 Oct '18

Hello, fellow Archers. My name is Brett and I've been making PKGBUILDs for the AUR for some time under the moniker 'Ainola'. A number of these packages have been kindly pulled into [community] by David Runge. I've since had a desire to get some of my other packages into [community], so I'm interested in working towards getting TU status. I'm also involved in the LibreOffice community (I just got back from the conference in Albania). David has been kind enough to give suggestions to my … [View More]

4 5