[aur-general] kodi-devel-bin

Eli Schwartz eschwartz at archlinux.org
Sun Aug 18 03:09:47 UTC 2019

On 8/17/19 5:30 AM, Ike Devolder wrote:
> On 12/08/2019 20:18, Eli Schwartz wrote:
>> @Ike,
>> I'm curious what made you choose to call it "kodi-bin" instead of what
>> seems to me like the more descriptive and accurate "kodi-x11". Perhaps
>> it might make sense to change the pkgname?
> kodi-bin was chosen to have kodi-x11 as the default, if all "bin"
> packages provide kodi-bin and kodi depends on "kodi-bin", by default
> there would be kodi-gdbm installed, which most people can't actually
> use. So by having kodi-bin as an actual package which holds kodi-x11
> that is still most used, users of kodi-wayland or kodi-gdbm can install
> those alongside or alone to suit there needs.

You mean, that they would be interactively requested to press "1", "2",
or "3" -- and if they simply press enter without even reading the
console, then they would get gbm. I guess your concern is that pacman
doesn't have a mechanism for choosing which is the default provider when
the user doesn't pay attention to pacman? But I don't see why we should
care about such users.

On the other hand, it seems like the current mechanism means that kodi's
X11 executable will always be installed, and users won't even know that
they have the option to install a wayland version. So in order to make
it work only on X11 without requiring the user to pay attention to what
they are installing, you made it... broken on not-X11?

Given the precise nature of the tradeoffs, I recommend renaming the
package to kodi-x11 so that users at least have a way to know why their
package doesn't actually work because they dared to use wayland, then
depending directly on kodi-x11 and not some provides. Then add
kodi-wayland and kodi-gbm as optdepends so they know what to install
instead if they need it.

Alternatively, fix the Kodi page on the Arch Wiki to recommend
installing the actual package "kodi-x11"/"kodi-gbm"/"kodi-wayland"
instead of "kodi", which will *also* work fine, pull in kodi as a
dependency and satisfy the kodi-bin dependency provider without
requiring any sort of interactive prompt, and which is frankly a lot
more intuitive. This would seem to solve the best of every world,
without creating trick package names and unworking installs for people
who just installed "kodi" and now have no idea why kodi "doesn't support

Eli Schwartz
Bug Wrangler and Trusted User

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 1601 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/attachments/20190817/d4add72e/attachment-0001.sig>

More information about the aur-general mailing list