Talk:Creating packages

From ArchWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Proposal: Creating a PKGBUILD: Package naming conventions

Comment: This pulls content from the AUR page (FAQ 13 and the bit about patched packages from the Rules of submission). Whether or not a package is intended for the AUR, it's a good idea to follow these conventions, so they are more appropriately placed here. quequotion (talk) 14:46, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
The only mention of conventions on this page should be in Creating packages#More detailed guidelines. -- Lahwaacz (talk) 14:58, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Which links to Arch package guidelines where there is a subsection on package naming that could also serve as a better host for this content than the AUR page, and indeed it already has some information about naming conventions. Shall I move the proposal there? quequotion (talk) 15:10, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Why? Except fo the last one, these conventions don't apply to official repositories because they don't contain such packages. -- Lahwaacz (talk) 15:32, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
The Arch package guidelines page does not state that its scope is limited to official repository packages; in fact the header states the guidelines are to be adhered to "especially if" a package is intended to become official, indicating that the article has a wider scope. I read it as a guide for package creation that applies to packages created for Arch Linux in general, whatever manner of repository they may end up in. These conventions need to go somewhere, and they don't strictly apply to AUR packages either (people should still follow them for their packages in third-party repositories, etc). I don't think there's enough content here to warrant their own page, and the Arch package guidelines#Package naming section contains related content. quequotion (talk) 16:25, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Development packages should have a suffix for their Version Control System, such as -cvs, -svn, -git, -hg, -bzr or -darcs.
Comment: This point is already made in VCS package guidelines#Guidelines, but the page could be better organized. quequotion (talk) 16:42, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Packages having extra features enabled and/or patches in comparison to the official ones should be named differently to express that. For example, a package for GNU screen containing the sidebar patch could be named screen-sidebar. Additionally the provides=('screen') array should be used to avoid conflicts with the official package and satisfy its dependents.
Comment: This last remaining point is relevant only for the AUR, which should be an organized place. It doesn't matter for people who create their package from scratch or rebuild a package from the ABS. -- Lahwaacz (talk) 16:57, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
It is relevant to packages created from scratch and to packages in third party repositories--packagers should still follow these conventions even if there's no mechanism in place to enforce them. Regardless, we should move this discussion to Talk:Arch package guidelines#Proposal: Additional Conventions. quequotion (talk) 23:39, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Comment: This point is available in Nonfree applications package guidelines#Package naming, but finding it is not particularly intuitive. quequotion (talk) 16:42, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Comment: Created a draft page for 32-bit package guidelines to handle this as three distinct points (and give a more complete picture of 32-bit packaging). quequotion (talk) 16:42, 4 March 2019 (UTC)