December 2021 - Aur-general - lists.archlinux.org

[aur-general] Clarification for Deletion request #30701
by silentnoodle 03 Jan '22

03 Jan '22

hey all, Today a package i co maintain (telegram-desktop-bin) was deleted because "Package exists in official community repo", but since we used prebuilt binary as source I did not think that would have applied. So guess I'd just like a word on what the first point in the rules of submission means: https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/AUR_submission_guidelines#Rules_of_submiss… Cheers, Ben a.k.a silentnoodle

16 34

Re: [aur-general] Why were my 'makedeb-beta' and 'makedeb-alpha' packages deleted?
by George Rawlinson 20 Dec '21

20 Dec '21

> On 18/12/2021, at 20:46, Hunter Wittenborn <hunter(a)hunterwittenborn.com> wrote: > > Unless you want to discuss anything further, could I just get a final answer on if my packages can be put back on the AUR, and then we can just leave it there? I really don't want to argue a ton, but there's a fair bit of frustration involved when I have packages that I'd like to be used in production just being deleted without a chance for me to even intervene. Yep, go for it. I didn’t see the posts on aur-general, having only searched aur-requests for any replies. That’s on me, apologies for that.

1 0

[aur-general] Please disregard my deletion request for linux-slim
by kiasoc5＠tutanota.com 20 Dec '21

20 Dec '21

Please ignore my deletion request for linux-slim [1]. I thought the package would be too niche but there are some users of it per the package comments. Perhaps now is a good time to clarify what the wiki means by an "extremely specialized" package? [1] https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-requests/2021-December/063787.html Thanks kiasoc5

2 1

[aur-general] Why were my 'makedeb-beta' and 'makedeb-alpha' packages deleted?
by Hunter Wittenborn 18 Dec '21

18 Dec '21

Forwarded from mailto:aur-general@lists.archlinux.org, as it doesn't appear to have sent there. ============ Forwarded message ============ From: Hunter Wittenborn <hunter(a)hunterwittenborn.com> To: "aur-requests"<aur-requests(a)lists.archlinux.org> Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2021 23:28:09 -0600 Subject: Why were my 'makedeb-beta' and 'makedeb-alpha' packages deleted? ============ Forwarded message ============ Hi, I just received some emails about an hour ago that my 'makedeb-beta' and 'makedeb-alpha' packages were deleted off of the AUR because they were duplicates of 'makedeb' [1] [2]. I'm a bit confused on how exactly they're "duplicates" of makedeb though, as they're literally the beta and alpha releases for makedeb, the lattermost being the stable release. The only other hypothesis I'd have is that the underlying program is the same, but these are all different releases, and they're all being published so users can use whichever channel they chose. My packages also aren't the only ones following a multi-channel packaging system on the AUR, so I'm not really sure why my packages got flagged like this in particular. Could I get an explanation for all of this? I'm quite confused on how I could have messed up - recloning the PKGBUILDs for 'makedeb-beta' and 'makedeb-alpha' on my local system is also still clearly showing the differences between the three packages. [1]: https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-requests/2021-December/063223.html [2]: https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-requests/2021-December/063222.html --- Hunter Wittenborn mailto:hunter@hunterwittenborn.com https://www.hunterwittenborn.com https://github.com/hwittenborn

4 7

[aur-general] Regarding deletion request #30697 (waybox)
by Lex Black 16 Dec '21

16 Dec '21

Good day list, I'm currently a little bit stumped about this particular request. I wouldn't have said anything if there were the right reason named for deletion. One reason would be, that due to upstream stagnation the waybox release could only be compiled with an older wlroots versions. Would have been a fair point and I was aware of that restriction. But what happened instead? I got a OOD Mail, 2 min later a deletion request[0] was issued. And eight minutes down the road this request got already accepted. Hella speedy process. If I recall the requests I made, there was time involved for checking if I made a reasonable request. But again: There were reasons why a request could have been valid. So let us take look: Regarding the OOD message: Quote: "This branch is 32 commits behind wizbright:master." Well, yes. But we are talking about a release from a tagged release. We aren't talking about waybox-git. And yes, it wasn't the main repo, but it was the personal repo from the last active developer. He did tag only in his repo as he wasn't the owner[1]. Regarding the request: Quote: "th1nhhdk [1] filed a deletion request for waybox [2]: -There's no "release", only the git version exists -Maintainer's custom repo is outdated -Maintainer don't want to maintain this package anymore" Okay, first point is debatable. But from my point of view were the tags from someone who actively contributed in the main repo and knew what he was doing. Second point is in my opinion not valid, as it build from a tag. But what maintainer are we talking about? The waybox maintainer or the PKGBUILD maintainer? If the latter. Well... I have nothing to do with this so called custom repo. And now the third point: Again. What maintainer? I got reprimanded in the past for requests that made it difficult when looked at a later point. And this was only a few hours ago. Although I must admit I cannot recall if I pinned a comment regarding the status with recent wlroots packages. But I'm fairly sure I didn't orphan the package (well, I got the OOD-message) and I didn't leave a comment like the previous maintainer of the PKGBUILD, who wrote an agiated message when he dropped it. So what do I want, after I writing this wall of text? In a tone which will likely come around as angry (kinda, but only at the situation and how it went and not the persons involved). Nothing in particular. I won't reinstate the package, as a deletion request with the right argument could have been deemed valid. My main gripes with this request in particular is the following point: * No time for me to react as the whole thing went down in 10 minutes And as far as I can tell, there was no attempt in making contact beforehand. I was even attempting to look at this again as someone informed me about a possible missing build dep. And was there even a check if the arguments were valid? In the past it took some time before requests were accepted. Orphaned, ood and truly dead sources were removed faster of course, but it could still be vetoed. But this one? One with a fairly active maintainer? Not so much. But whatever. It happened. Best regards ____________ [0] https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-requests/2021-December/063697.html [1] https://github.com/wizbright/waybox/issues/25

2 1

[aur-general] Customize testing in PKGBUILD
by Jan Kohnert 14 Dec '21

14 Dec '21

Hi, I'm maintaining the eccodes aur package and would like to enable some extra tests in PKGBUILD. This can be done by downloading extra testdata and put that into the main build dir. As good as this may seem, it significantly blows up the build time of the package. So I thought about somehow let the user decide whether to run those expensive extra tests at build. Unfortunately I could not find a recommended way of doing so. Would it be an option to check an environment variable, call it ENABLE_EXTRA_TESTS or so, and run those stuff only if set? And otherwise just run the usual tests without the extra data? Any thoughts? Thanks! -- MfG Jan

5 5

[aur-general] TU application - Segaja
by Andreas 'Segaja' Schleifer 07 Dec '21

07 Dec '21

Hi everyone, My name is Andreas Schleifer, in the internet also known as Segaja, and I would like to apply to the position of a Trusted User. My sponsors are Levente Polyak and Jelle van der Waa, thanks for that ;) I'm a 34 years old DevOps engineer in the same company as Levente is currently working in. I have started as a (PHP) developer and have over time migrated to also doing devops work. My Linux "career" started around 2005/2006 during my university time with Ubuntu. A few years later a friend of mine kindly pointed me to Arch Linux. At the beginning it was a bit uncomfortable for me but I quickly embraced the fact that there was no UI to configure anything and that you have to work directly on the configuration files. In the past year I have started to become more interested in packaging for Arch which made me adopt two orphaned AUR packages ([1] and [2]) and upload one new package [3]) to AUR. Some packages I started as AUR packages were later moved by Levente into the official community repository: [4], [5] At some point I also got interested in the reproducible builds topic and helped out there a bit [6]. This is also where I got in contact with Jelle and we talked a few times on IRC back then. When I got interested in becoming a TU I talked with Levente about this and he suggested that I should try to get some more packaging experience, so he suggested me to try to (re-)package schleuder [8] which was in a very old and broken version in AUR back then. It took me quiet a while and I learned a lot, but in the end I eneded up packaging schleuder [9] and schleuder-cli [10]. The biggest learning from that for me was 1) that packaging is much more then "dumping" an upstream tool into a PKGBUILD file to be installed on a users system and 2) that the ruby ecosystem can be very annoying to deal with. A lot of inconsistent tools to be used for testing and a lot of cyclic dependencies which makes writing PKGBUILD files with check() functions very difficult. In the process of packaging the schleuder packages I also ended up with a host of other ruby packages which were needed [11]. In order to be able to package the schleuder packages I also worked closely with the upstream maintainers to resolve issues that came up in the Arch Linux build environment. I have some devops experience from my daily work and I would like to also offer this to Arch Linux over time. I already talked with Jelle and Levente about some of the devops projects that were going on in the past. I'm currently also working on an ansible role to install schleuder on Arch Linux infrastructure [12] in order to handlesecurity(a)archlinux.org [13]. As TU I would also like to help out Levent and other package maintainers to keep their awesome packages up to date with upstream changes/releases (e.g. [4], [5], [7]). I would also like to migrate hss [1] and stern [2] to the official repositories, as I believe they are both very useful tools for people who work with servers (hss) and kubernetes (stern) often. If you have any questions or want to know more you can also reach me on IRC in #archlinux Best regards Segaja [1]https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/hss/ [2]https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/stern/ [3]https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/prometheus-dnsmasq-exporter-git/ [4]https://archlinux.org/packages/community/x86_64/aliyun-cli/ [5]https://archlinux.org/packages/community/x86_64/alicloud-vault/ [6]https://reproducible-builds.org/reports/2020-06/ [7]https://archlinux.org/packages/community/any/ls++/ [8]https://schleuder.org/ [9]https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/schleuder/ [10]https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/schleuder-cli/ [11]https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/?K=Segaja&SeB=m [12]https://gitlab.archlinux.org/archlinux/infrastructure/-/merge_requests/4… [13]https://gitlab.archlinux.org/archlinux/infrastructure/-/issues/178 GET | 200 | 709 ms | cloudflare

6 7

[aur-general] doctest: Package appeared in Community-Testing, breaking AUR pk
by justiceoz 03 Dec '21

03 Dec '21

Hi, I am the maintainer of the aur package [doctest](https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/doctest/) and I was pretty late at updating the package. Today, I finally remembered and found the time to update it but apparently it is already in [community-testing](https://archlinux.org/packages/community-testing/any/doc…. I get the following error: > remote: error: package already provided by [community-testing]: doctest > remote: error: hook declined to update refs/heads/master Should I request a deletion of the aur package or any other suggestions? Best Oz

2 1