[pacman-dev] Ideas welcome?
louipc.ist at gmail.com
Thu Jun 24 20:49:31 EDT 2010
On Fri 25 Jun 2010 09:18 +1000, Allan McRae wrote:
> On 25/06/10 02:58, Loui Chang wrote:
> >On Thu 24 Jun 2010 18:28 +0200, Cedric Staniewski wrote:
> >>On 17.06.2010 17:09, Loui Chang wrote:
> >>>On Fri 18 Jun 2010 00:30 +1000, Allan McRae wrote:
> >>>>I think I have found the issue here. We obviously have a NOPASSWD
> >>>>entry in our sudoers file so "sudo -l" does not require a password.
> >>>>So the bug is confirmed. However the fix is not fully functional as
> >>>>if I have sudo installed but can not use it for pacman, then I can
> >>>>no longer fall back to using "su -c". I'd choose excess password
> >>>>typing over functionality loss.
> >>>Why not just take sudo and asroot out of the equation and treat makepkg
> >>>as a real non-handholding executable?
> >>I'd like to add that "sudo -l" was never meant as hand-holding. The
> >>intention was to support pacman-wrappers/replacements that aren't
> >>supposed to be run as root because they have their own logic to call
> >>pacman as root. The most prominent example would be yaourt, I guess.
> >>But since this is broken due to the 'su -c' patch, I'm fine with
> >>removing it again.
> >Yeah it just kind of bothers me that makepkg is doing all these
> >auxiliary functions like package installation, uninstallation, and
> >permissions managment. It has lost its focus.
> You know that dependency installation etc was a very, very early
> feature so how can makepkg have "lost its focus"?
You're right. I should say that it lacks focus.
> >I think those things are better placed in outside scripts (like yaourt).
> >It almost seems like the only thing stopping it from becoming another
> >yaourt is that we've dubbed the AUR as untrusted.
> So you use makepkg to update your system?
> Seriously, if you are recommending that automatic dependency is
> removed from makepkg, you need to go away, do some more packaging
> and then reevaluate your opinion.
Yes I am recommending that it be -moved- from makepkg, but how does that
mean I need to go away? I never said that it is unneccessary. I just
believe the auxiliary functions should be moved into other scripts.
I hardly need to do any packaging to see the flaws in the AUR, aurtools
(defunct), and devtools. What makes makepkg the exception?
I don't understand how my opinion on the design of the tools would be so
dramatically changed whether I've made 10 packages, or 100.
At least you could say "patches welcome". I guess that wouldn't be of
much use though, because you've already completely dismissed my
comments. Sorry. I didn't mean to offend your own opinions.
More information about the pacman-dev