djszapi at archlinux.us
Tue Oct 20 16:51:06 EDT 2009
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 1:05 PM, Sebastian Nowicki <sebnow at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 19, 2009, at 9:52 PM, Laszlo Papp wrote:
> I think AUR2 would be just a temporary solution for our final purposes. I
>> started to plan/design quite a few weeks ago the new AUR generation with
>> Louipc, and we think of an absolutely new implementation/idea. We would
>> for AUR to be a command-line based application like pacman. Well, I'd like
>> to see a more robust, and efficient impelementation of it, not a web based
> It depends what these "final purposes" are. The web frontend I am
> developing is exactly that, a web frontend. It works in exactly the same way
> as the package catalogue on the main site. Just because there's a web
> frontend doesn't mean that "third party" clients can't communicate with the
> server. After all, pacman does.
Yeah, as I told my final purpose a command-line that arch users like, you
can see it from the important application, like pacman, aif (arch installer
project), devtools, dbscripts, pkgtools, etc.. Arch is a minimal based
distribution, but I know you know it hehe :) Nevertheless I don't see any
reason for it to be web application, but of course I won't touch web
application, so it will be available too, and the users will choose.
> It is this separation of functionality that allows the server, web frontend
> and command line or GUI clients to co-exist. There's no "temporary
> solution", your project simply has other goals. If you don't like the idea
> of a web frontend, simply forget about it. Even if you make a server, api
> and client, I will still be able to make a web frontend that utilizes that.
Yeah, 'aurman' has other goals than 'AUR2', but yeah you're right with it,
any web application and gui frontend will be able to use aurman's api,
backend, I will do it in that way, at least I try.
> On Oct 20, 2009, at 6:17 AM, Laszlo Papp wrote:
>> I use pacman codebase as a sample, because I dealt with it in the past to
>> understand, and I think it's a good project as a starting point, I admire
>> pacman-project :P And it's better to understand two similar codebase than
>> understanding two absolutely different codebase, I think so.
>> It won't be a pacman wrapper, if you think of that, however I established
>> for it with command-line options to wrapper pacman and makepkg
>> But to tell truth here too, I'd like if it was just optional dependency of
>> aurman. I don't like third party tools and applications as a dependency,
>> I avoid them as I can, so I don't say with it pacman or makepkg is a bad
>> program or something similar, just that I'd like to be as independent as I
>> can. I won't be full independent from pacman/makepkg because of PKGBUILD,
>> PKGINFO files e.g. I linked the above suggestions above to give
>> Sorry for my relatively long post :)
>> Best Regards,
>> Laszlo Papp
> I think it would help if we actually knew what this client was meant to do.
> It seems to me like there's a _lot_ of feature creep. I don't understand why
> you forked the pacman source code (including libalpm). The whole point of
> libalpm is to have a common library which handles database manipulation and
> package reading. Why fork it instead of simply linking against it? If the
> libalpm code differs, I doubt that people would want to use your client, for
> fear of breaking their database.
No-no, I won't fork it absolutely, just reuse some useful functions from it
that's written, but obviously not all of them even you can see so much
source codes from that, I will refactor so much things in the future, as I
said it's not a simple work for an afternoon, but I fight with it :) Well,
my API library will be named 'libalam', which mean Arch Linux Aur Manager,
similar like libalpm, Arch Linux Pacman Manager. I think it's a good name
choice for it to keep arch related projects closed together, not absolutely
different way. Summary: It will be two different API.
> I'd also like to know specifically what the server would do. I really can't
> think of a reason not to use a mature and efficient web server who's
> specific purpose is to serve files. Considering that a web server is perfect
> for this purpose, I also don't understand why you're so opposed to a web
> frontend. It only seems logical. The two do not have to be tightly coupled.
The webserver is a good choice for package storing as http/ftp two, as you
see it in case of archlinux mirror too, okay no problem for me to build a
web front end for aurman API or similar, but that I'd like to establish is a
command line tools as much as possible.
What do you think about this small PKGINFO modification?
Thanks the feedback really Sebastian, maybe we will change idea more in the
future about I think, maybe we will collaborate, hehe.
More information about the aur-dev