[aur-general] Re-iterating the problem of AUR xorriso and Archlinux libisoburn
archlinux at cryptocrack.de
Sat Sep 14 08:37:04 EDT 2013
On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 02:03:29PM +0200, Thomas Schmitt wrote:
> Lukas Fleischer wrote:
> > Why don't we simply drop xorriso and xorriso-tcltk from the AUR
> I suspect that the AUR package was requested by some user
> of GRUB. If "xorriso" gets removed, then it might be
> requested again, and some friendly unaware person might
> re-introduce it.
By the same argument, you could say that we should keep completely
broken and wrong packages on the AUR, because there is a chance someone
will create the same broken package in the future again. The best thing
we can do is drop this stuff and do our best to prevent it from
happening again. There are even tools for automated detection of stuff
that is duplicated in the AUR (see aurdupes ), so I do not think it
is a big issue.
> > and add Tcl/Tk/BWidget optdepends to libisoburn ?
> > Maybe also add both xorriso and xorriso-tcltk as provides.
> Maybe the words "optdepends" and "provides" invalidate my
> qualms. Dunno ...
> You are the experts. Tell me if you expect me to do something
The provides directive makes sure that people can put something like
in their PKGBUILDs and it will automatically use libisoburn instead --
basically what you are trying to imitate with those empty meta packages.
optdepends can be used for something like:
optdepends=('tcl: for xorriso-tcltk')
I think the combination of these is what we want, isn't it?
You can check the PKGBUILD(5) man page for details. There is an online
version at .
> xorriso-tcltk is a wish script. It installs fine without
> wish, and bash tells properly what's missing when started:
> -bash: /usr/bin/xorriso-tcltk: wish: bad interpreter: No such file or directory
> The dependency on Bwidget is optional and self-adjusting.
> Have a nice day :)
More information about the aur-general