[aur-general] Review and a bit of other help request

Eli Schwartz eschwartz93 at gmail.com
Fri Mar 17 17:28:44 UTC 2017

On 03/17/2017 09:48 AM, Konstantin Gizdov wrote:
> xrootd-abi0 (this exists as a work around for other maintainer not updating
> package)

Don't do this. It violates the rules of the AUR and now that you have
drawn our attention to it, expect someone to file a deletion request.

> [...] Pythia, XRootD, Unuran are such extensions which were
> not available or broken in Arch. So I had to make 'pythia8' and
> 'xrootd-abi0' as workarounds. I have now finally been able to adopt
> 'pythia' and plan on making a major re-write and optimization. I still have
> to keep 'xrootd-abi0' as the current maintainer does not really update or
> fix his package when new versions/problems arise. I do not plan on making
> an orphan request, as I do not want to cause trouble for people.
> However, I do wish to make the current environment as good as possible for
> the people that actually use it and would welcome any input from you.
> Thanks in advance.

What you say makes no sense. You want it to work well, but the current
maintainer[s] is not actually maintaining the package[s]? And yet you
don't want to file an orphan request because somehow, in some
unidentified manner, an abandoned package getting a new maintainer
constitutes "trouble for people"?

So instead you violate the rules of the AUR by making forked packages
and confusing people about what is actually needed or available, you
trick people into potentially using the *real* but non-working packages,
and fail dismally at "mak[ing] the current environment as good as possible".

Good job! /s


Now, go ahead and file that orphan request you should have filed a long
time ago, apparently.

> Apart from that I wanted to understand better if and how package signing
> works with AUR. I tried the wiki and a bit of Google, but so far it seems
> package signing is only for official repos/trusted users. I did not want to
> try it out myself before getting some advice as I was afraid messing up
> will prevent people from installing them.

Signing is for anyone who wants to sign things. The real question is,
what are you trying to sign?

- Built packages ==> `makepkg --sign`, or retroactively there is always
  `gpg --detach-sign builtpkg-1.0-1-any.pkg.tar.xz`
- self-hosted package repository ==> repo-add --sign
- PKGBUILD ==> they don't need to be signed since users are expected to
  read them... but there is always `git config commit.gpgsign true`
  which users are free to check although AUR helpers certainly won't
- PKGBUILD source=() downloads ==> convince upstream to sign their
  release tarballs

Eli Schwartz

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/attachments/20170317/89985b97/attachment.asc>

More information about the aur-general mailing list