Difference between revisions of "Talk:AUR helpers"

From ArchWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
m ((archived))
(aurpublish fork: re)
 
(616 intermediate revisions by 26 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
Authors of each front end should post a short (2-3 line) description of their creation, along with a homepage link and an AUR link (where applicable). A link to a screenshot page would also be nice (if applicable).
+
{{Note|'''Moderation''' — If your AUR helper does [[partial upgrade]]s ''without explicit user intervention'' (i.e, specifying {{ic|-Sy}} on the command line), it has no place on this page or anywhere else on ArchWiki. No exceptions. -- [[User:Alad|Alad]] ([[User talk:Alad|talk]]) 09:37, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 +
}}
 +
 
 +
== pikaur ==
 +
 
 +
Due to conflicting and non-resolvable opinions regarding how {{AUR|pikaur}} handles the ''Native pacman'' column (see [https://github.com/actionless/pikaur/issues/201]) as well as lacking documentation about the project in general, this helper was moved from the main [[AUR helpers]] article to its discussion page.
 +
 
 +
In the unlikely event that both of these issues are addressed, the entry may be moved back to the article. -- [[User:Alad|Alad]] ([[User talk:Alad|talk]]) 09:09, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 +
 
 +
{| class="wikitable sortable" width="100%"
 +
! Name !! Written In !! Secure !! Clean build !! Native pacman !! Reliable parser !! Reliable solver !! Split packages !! Git clone !! Diff view !! Batch interaction || Shell completion !! Specificity
 +
|-
 +
! {{AUR|pikaur}}
 +
| Python || {{Yes}} || {{Yes}} || {{Y|[https://github.com/actionless/pikaur/issues/201 Partial]}} || {{Yes}} || {{Yes}} || {{G|[https://github.com/actionless/pikaur/commit/d409b958b4ff403d4fda06681231061854d32b3c Yes]}} || {{Yes}} || {{Yes}} || style="text-align:center;" | 1, 2, 3 || style="text-align:center;" | bash, fish, zsh || [http://0pointer.net/blog/dynamic-users-with-systemd.html dynamic users], [https://github.com/actionless/pikaur/tree/master/locale multilingual], sort by votes/popularity, [https://github.com/actionless/pikaur/pull/191 print news]
 +
|-
 +
|}
 +
 
 +
== "Reference" implementation ==
 +
 
 +
This is an alternative to [[#Reliable_Updater]]. Instead of an arbitrary set of test packages, we could write up a "specification" on what a reliable AUR helper should do. This should also be more helpful for potential AUR helper writers who otherwise have to wade through complex, fully-featured AUR helpers.
 +
 
 +
I propose a minimal reference implementation with the following points:
 +
 
 +
* No client-side workarounds for upstream limitations. In particular, a reference implementation does not need to score full points on split packages, as {{ic|makepkg --pkg}} was removed with pacman 5.
 +
* Minimal language constructs in e.g. a scripting language like {{Pkg|dash}}.
 +
* Prefer simplicity of implementation over being fully featured. In particular, an implementation may only support git clone and not git diff.
 +
 
 +
My initial plan was to keep such an implementation in a man page {{ic|aurhelper(7)}} (hosted as part of aurutils), but we can consider including on a sub-page of this article. It could be then linked from the comparison table. Thoughts? -- [[User:Alad|Alad]] ([[User talk:Alad|talk]]) 13:28, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 +
 
 +
: Generally agree with the idea, but I don't think there is a way around a set of PKGBUILDs that could be used to test helpers in a local AUR instance. F.e., I wouldn't define a "reliable" helper that doesn't handle split packages well. Since helpers are tolerated rather than supported, upstream limitations of the AUR might be temporary or permanent, meaning the limitation would actually be in the helper itself (f.e. like regex support). Also, I'd use pseudo code for such a reference as the actual implementation itself doesn't matter, unless you'd like to write a new minimalist helper. [[User:Spyhawk|Spyhawk]] ([[User talk:Spyhawk|talk]]) 15:26, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 +
 
 +
::Apart from {{Bug|56602}}, I can't think of a case where upstream ''opposed'' removing limitations, even if helpers directly benefited. cf. the regex support discussed in [https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-dev/2016-May/004036.html] or the exit codes finally introduced in makepkg 5.1 which made automatic building significantly easier imo. To me it seems that the main reason we have these AUR limations is due to the minimal interest of helper writers in contributing upstream, and upstream itself having different priorities. Not sure why former is the case, the PHP codebase may play part in it - at least it does for me.
 +
::You can keep ''dash'' close enough to pseudo-code, I guess less so if you want a complete example rather than exemplary code blocks. For the PKGBUILD set, I use this: [https://github.com/AladW/aurutils-test/blob/master/package.t#L11-L31] -- [[User:Alad|Alad]] ([[User talk:Alad|talk]]) 18:34, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 +
 
 +
::: My understanding is that changes that aren't invasive will be accepted upstream, but otherwise might be rejected (see [https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-dev/2018-January/004421.html]). One prominent example that comes to mind is {{Bug|48796}}. It's not really relevant anymore since x86 has been officially dropped, but the solution would involve duplicating DB tables on the server, which isn't trivial to implement/migrate. Many of the feature requests involve non-trivial code change, which is the main reason nobody pushed patches; I dislike PHP but the language itself isn't too hard either. For regex, see the bottom of [https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-dev/2016-May/004044.html], which is the follow-up of your link above.
 +
::: Your testsuite seems interesting (thanks for the link), but one advantage of having a fixed set of packages is that these packages might be updated and change, making these edge cases difficult to test. This happened quite a few times with my own list of test packages in the past and this was rather annoying. [[User:Spyhawk|Spyhawk]] ([[User talk:Spyhawk|talk]]) 20:20, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 +
 
 +
== <s>trizen and split packages</s> ==
 +
 
 +
Trizen no longer works with split packages since pacman 5.1: [https://github.com/trizen/trizen/issues/171] Give it a week or two and then give it a red entry in the table? -- [[User:Alad|Alad]] ([[User talk:Alad|talk]]) 11:49, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 +
 
 +
:I think granting a red label due to a bug shouldn't happen instantly since the bug can be fixed soon. Let's give it two weeks (one week is too short time). [[User:Kitsunyan|Kitsunyan]] ([[User talk:Kitsunyan|talk]]) 15:51, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 +
 
 +
::Who would benefit from that? This article is only and most factual source of comparison for AUR helpers. It would only be fair to trizen and other helpers if entries changed as soon as they were broken or fixed. -- [[User:Svito|Svito]] ([[User talk:Svito|talk]]) 12:15, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 +
 
 +
:::It's to give some leeway to the authors who write these projects in their free time. -- [[User:Alad|Alad]] ([[User talk:Alad|talk]]) 14:45, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 +
 
 +
:::: [https://github.com/trizen/trizen/commit/f0a9dfe408d41117c11c364ed98796eeca9b35c2] -- [[User:Alad|Alad]] ([[User talk:Alad|talk]]) 09:01, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 +
 
 +
== Add pacui to the table? ==
 +
 
 +
[https://github.com/excalibur1234/pacui] {{AUR|pacui}} is kind of an aur-helper-helper. It wraps AUR helpers to provide a nice tui and also adds some of its own features. I don't really use it my self so I can't comment on how it would fit in the table/what results it would get. Just wondering if it fits here. [[User:Morganamilo|Morganamilo]] ([[User talk:Morganamilo|talk]]) 07:27, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 +
 
 +
:Seems to be aimed at Manjaro going by the amount of partial upgrade it runs (e.g. [https://github.com/excalibur1234/pacui/blob/master/pacui#L1251]) and weird stuff like "update systemd first". Former alone makes it unsuitable for inclusion in the wiki.
 +
:There's some other of these GUIs around that might fit though, like {{AUR|argon}}. Not sure where to put them; a separate section perhaps? They don't really have unique functionality of their own besides a modified user interface.  -- [[User:Alad|Alad]] ([[User talk:Alad|talk]]) 09:50, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 +
 
 +
::A new section like [[Pacman tips#Graphical front-ends]] could work. Probably wont be too useful if argon ends up being the only one that's suitable for inclusion. [[User:Morganamilo|Morganamilo]] ([[User talk:Morganamilo|talk]]) 12:37, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 +
 
 +
== <s>Add back pikaur</s> ==
 +
 
 +
I checked most of discussions ([https://github.com/actionless/pikaur/issues/201] and few others), [https://github.com/actionless/pikaur/commit/de9824fd7cd95530a648c691f4d784bc4d10ebfb relevant commit] and I think while [[User:Actionless|Actionless]] did not create discussion after making disagreeable changes in the past his edits should not be taken as an insult or attack on the article or anyone involved. He believed what he did was right, it is easy to revert, explain what he did wrong so he can improve and we can move on. As long as he does not break CoC occasional bad edits should be allowed to happen and will be gracefully reverted same day anyway.
 +
 
 +
As I remember [[User:Kynikos|Kynikos]] was in favor of [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Be bold|BOLD]] principle, and even our own CoC starts with [[Code of conduct#Respect|respect]] (it is beautifully written). And as much as we look up to Wikipedia for guidance on rules and practices there is still room for improvement, both systemic and personal in actually applying them to our interactions with people.
 +
 
 +
-- [[User:Svito|Svito]] ([[User talk:Svito|talk]]) 22:49, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 +
 
 +
: Re-added the entry; while there's reasonable cause to remove the author from the wiki, there arguably is not for his project. Now let's close this discussion and move on to [[#Native_pacman_criteria_and_IO_manipulation]]. -- [[User:Alad|Alad]] ([[User talk:Alad|talk]]) 10:55, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 +
 
 +
: @Svito every AUR helper author so far has wonderfully played by the rules, both in spirit and letter, ''and'' has made positive contributions to other AUR helpers. The pikaur author does none of that (on the contrary, see his aggressive behavior in for example [https://github.com/polygamma/aurman/issues/91] and [https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/User_talk:Actionless], where he accuses others of misusing the table criteria which he now does himself) and I'm done with indulging both him and his project. -- [[User:Alad|Alad]] ([[User talk:Alad|talk]]) 09:06, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 +
:: I just looked at [https://github.com/actionless/pikaur/issues/201] to see on the author response, and as expected 1. personal attacks 2. repeating the same point over and over without listing to reasonable argument presented by others. With that mind it's already more than generous that the author is still allowed to post on this wiki. -- [[User:Alad|Alad]] ([[User talk:Alad|talk]]) 09:38, 12 June 2018 (UTC):
 +
 
 +
: You need to point out any particular wiki rules violation or smth more than saying what your emotions are touched. [[User:Actionless|Actionless]] ([[User talk:Actionless|talk]]) 09:46, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 +
 
 +
::>You need to point out any particular wiki rules violation or smth more than saying what your emotions are touched
 +
::No problem.
 +
::* https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Code_of_conduct#Respect_other_users
 +
::* https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Code_of_conduct#Respect_the_staff
 +
::* https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Code_of_conduct#No_trolling
 +
::* https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Code_of_conduct#Do_not_flame
 +
::* https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Code_of_conduct#Be_responsible
 +
::* https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Code_of_conduct#Ineffective_discussion_.28.22bikeshed.22.29
 +
::Congratulations on violating so many rules at once. And with that: [https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Special:BlockList] -- [[User:Alad|Alad]] ([[User talk:Alad|talk]]) 09:51, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 +
 
 +
::: I'd like to reopen this discussion, and point out all the answers found here: https://github.com/actionless/pikaur/issues/201 One really has to discuss, what to do with pikaur from now on, regarding the table in the wiki. I surely can only speak for myself, but I am not interested in validating the technical claims made by Actionless regarding pikaur, to ensure, that it is really doing what he claims it to be doing. Since the table should give a technical overview, that has to be done, and I am not sure, if anyone else is willing to do this, after this discussion. [[User:Polygamma|Polygamma]] ([[User talk:Polygamma|talk]]) 20:15, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 +
 
 +
:::: As I pointed out in [[#Proposal]] I'm definitely done with investing any more time in this. After 200 comments on github I thought to have found a satisfactory solution, then out of the blue the pikaur author started making preposterous remarks on other helper ''authors'' with no technical value or relevance whatsoever. Since furthermore the project is in constant shift and no real documentation is given, expecting to keep such entry updated is beyond reasonable. Unless there's volounteers I suggest to remove the entry again and leave some notice similar to what's done in [[Bitcoin#Bitcoin software]]. -- [[User:Alad|Alad]] ([[User talk:Alad|talk]]) 20:46, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 +
 
 +
::::: I have a better idea: move the pikaur entry to the discussion with an appropriate note. -- [[User:Alad|Alad]] ([[User talk:Alad|talk]]) 08:57, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 +
 
 +
:::::: Done, closing. -- [[User:Alad|Alad]] ([[User talk:Alad|talk]]) 09:10, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 +
 
 +
::::::: You might go even further and more to the point. Consider changing the note in [[AUR helpers#Build and search]] to something like this: {{Note|The content of this section is peer-reviewed and modifications require a discussion in [[Talk:AUR helpers]]. Furthermore, to avoid unreasonable competition and abuse of the specified criteria to get "greener" results, only projects whose development is driven by purely technical arguments can be listed in the tables.}} I'm not sure if the motivation is understandable by just reading the note, maybe you can come up with something better. -- [[User:Lahwaacz|Lahwaacz]] ([[User talk:Lahwaacz|talk]]) 21:50, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 +
 
 +
::::::::This is a bit over the top. New wording would imply that something bad like this already happened and to be expected to happen again in the future. Worst case scenario of resolving original topic that I opened already happened and I regret taking any part in it. There is no reason to push narratives even further. I want this misunderstanding to end and be forgotten not engraved into Draconian laws. -- [[User:Svito|Svito]] ([[User talk:Svito|talk]]) 22:26, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 +
 
 +
:::::::::I agree that this is an exceptional case only so I don't think stricter notes/wordings are necessary. -- [[User:Alad|Alad]] ([[User talk:Alad|talk]]) 12:16, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 +
 
 +
::::::::: I agree, that going further would be too much. But I've got one question to @Svito - Why do you think, that this is only a "misunderstanding"? And at which point? [[User:Polygamma|Polygamma]] ([[User talk:Polygamma|talk]]) 17:01, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 +
 
 +
::::::::::That is not exactly what I said. I do not fully appreciate being asked a public response in a closed thread.
 +
::::::::::I think it is fair to say (and I checked on this privately) that there was a misunderstanding of the issue from [[User:Actionless|Actionless]]' side when this begun escalating. Unfortunately for him he was clueless in this social situation which may be possible result of different cultural exposure as well as lack of social experience on his side. I cannot blame him for being human and making mistakes provided he is willing to learn from them and improve as an individual in order to bring benefit to himself and others.
 +
::::::::::When I opened this issue I asked everybody to try not taking this issue too personally. Having prejudice against somebody just makes you hate that character in your head when in reality he is just like you but born and learned differently.
 +
::::::::::-- [[User:Svito|Svito]] ([[User talk:Svito|talk]]) 20:07, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 +
 
 +
:::::::::: Apparently misogeny is "just a misunderstanding". I have no interest in pursuing this further here; it should however be clear that such behavior is absolutely not tolerated, be it on ArchWiki or other parts of the Arch community, and regardless if by users or staff. -- [[User:Alad|Alad]] ([[User talk:Alad|talk]]) 09:52, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 +
 
 +
== Native pacman criteria and IO manipulation ==
 +
 
 +
=== Proposal summary ===
 +
 
 +
: do not separate commands ''or their actions''
 +
: do not suppress or force pacman behavior by using anything besides native pacman flags, e. g. by altering stdin, stdout
 +
or (proposed in issue #201)
 +
: do not modify the pacman prompt
 +
 
 +
Latter might be overly broad as it includes --noconfirm, but it might make sense when adding "by default". Note: --ask "modifies" the prompt in the sense that it reverses it. -- [[User:Alad|Alad]] ([[User talk:Alad|talk]]) 09:00, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 +
 
 +
== Required package update frequency ==
 +
 
 +
How often does a package have to be updated to remain in 'Active'?
 +
 
 +
* '''bauerbill''' - last update: 2017-10-03
 +
* '''aura''' - last update: 2017-10-07
 +
 
 +
{{Unsigned|13:45, 20 June 2018 (UTC)|J1simon}}
 +
 
 +
:There's no criteria for this. There were, but then people would periodically update their README and call it an "update". See: [https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php?title=Talk:AUR_helpers&oldid=520747#Effectiveness_of_the_.22inactive.22_table] -- [[User:Alad|Alad]] ([[User talk:Alad|talk]]) 13:59, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 +
 
 +
== aurpublish fork ==
 +
 
 +
"Uploading" section includes questionable aurpublish fork initially added [[Special:Diff/432791/next|here]].
 +
 
 +
Not sure why [https://github.com/eli-schwartz/pkgbuilds my original version] couldn't be used. Also not sure why any of the changes in this version were never contributed back (though many seem fragile enough I'd never accept them).
 +
 
 +
My code was apparently [https://github.com/Edenhofer/abs/commit/e12c2457366874516870c637954adde3b6500143 licensed] by @Edh under the GPL2+, a year and a half before I [https://github.com/eli-schwartz/pkgbuilds/issues/10 specified license information] -- coincidentally choosing the same license. Not sure if that counts or what it means, but it does sort of tickle me pink. Who remembers to specify a license, but doesn't bother to check the licensing of external code?
 +
 
 +
Its main difference seems to be, including bloaty options to heuristically analyze the PKGBUILD and verbosely report every substring match for "http[^s]" and whether it supports https (the url {{ic|1=_nghttp2_ver=1.31.0}} doesn't, the url {{ic|1=<nowiki>source+=("https://github.com/nghttp2/nghttp2/...")</nowiki>}} always did), providing parallelized upload of many PKGBUILDs at once, running updpkgsums in a semi-automated manner (something I've explicitly refused on the grounds it encourages bad habits), failure to enforce --verifysource (which I added after the silent fork I guess), and securely grep'ing the .SRCINFO rather than sourcing unknown and potentially malicious code you yourself just checked into git.
 +
 
 +
Honestly this seems to be deeply confusing to users, untested, and in the updpkgsums case just encourages bad habits.
 +
 
 +
{{Unsigned|15:57, 24 June 2018 (UTC)|Eschwartz}}
 +
 
 +
:I [[Special:Diff/526243/next|removed]] fork from the article for now. This is definitely concerning but unfortunately not uncommon practice on GitHub where somebody forks unlicensed code and adds license file to it. Feel free to add your version of aurpublish with its description if you like. -- [[User:Svito|Svito]] ([[User talk:Svito|talk]]) 11:18, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 11:18, 25 June 2018

Note: Moderation — If your AUR helper does partial upgrades without explicit user intervention (i.e, specifying -Sy on the command line), it has no place on this page or anywhere else on ArchWiki. No exceptions. -- Alad (talk) 09:37, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

pikaur

Due to conflicting and non-resolvable opinions regarding how pikaurAUR handles the Native pacman column (see [1]) as well as lacking documentation about the project in general, this helper was moved from the main AUR helpers article to its discussion page.

In the unlikely event that both of these issues are addressed, the entry may be moved back to the article. -- Alad (talk) 09:09, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Name Written In Secure Clean build Native pacman Reliable parser Reliable solver Split packages Git clone Diff view Batch interaction Shell completion Specificity
pikaurAUR Python Yes Yes Partial Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 1, 2, 3 bash, fish, zsh dynamic users, multilingual, sort by votes/popularity, print news

"Reference" implementation

This is an alternative to #Reliable_Updater. Instead of an arbitrary set of test packages, we could write up a "specification" on what a reliable AUR helper should do. This should also be more helpful for potential AUR helper writers who otherwise have to wade through complex, fully-featured AUR helpers.

I propose a minimal reference implementation with the following points:

  • No client-side workarounds for upstream limitations. In particular, a reference implementation does not need to score full points on split packages, as makepkg --pkg was removed with pacman 5.
  • Minimal language constructs in e.g. a scripting language like dash.
  • Prefer simplicity of implementation over being fully featured. In particular, an implementation may only support git clone and not git diff.

My initial plan was to keep such an implementation in a man page aurhelper(7) (hosted as part of aurutils), but we can consider including on a sub-page of this article. It could be then linked from the comparison table. Thoughts? -- Alad (talk) 13:28, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Generally agree with the idea, but I don't think there is a way around a set of PKGBUILDs that could be used to test helpers in a local AUR instance. F.e., I wouldn't define a "reliable" helper that doesn't handle split packages well. Since helpers are tolerated rather than supported, upstream limitations of the AUR might be temporary or permanent, meaning the limitation would actually be in the helper itself (f.e. like regex support). Also, I'd use pseudo code for such a reference as the actual implementation itself doesn't matter, unless you'd like to write a new minimalist helper. Spyhawk (talk) 15:26, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Apart from FS#56602, I can't think of a case where upstream opposed removing limitations, even if helpers directly benefited. cf. the regex support discussed in [2] or the exit codes finally introduced in makepkg 5.1 which made automatic building significantly easier imo. To me it seems that the main reason we have these AUR limations is due to the minimal interest of helper writers in contributing upstream, and upstream itself having different priorities. Not sure why former is the case, the PHP codebase may play part in it - at least it does for me.
You can keep dash close enough to pseudo-code, I guess less so if you want a complete example rather than exemplary code blocks. For the PKGBUILD set, I use this: [3] -- Alad (talk) 18:34, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
My understanding is that changes that aren't invasive will be accepted upstream, but otherwise might be rejected (see [4]). One prominent example that comes to mind is FS#48796. It's not really relevant anymore since x86 has been officially dropped, but the solution would involve duplicating DB tables on the server, which isn't trivial to implement/migrate. Many of the feature requests involve non-trivial code change, which is the main reason nobody pushed patches; I dislike PHP but the language itself isn't too hard either. For regex, see the bottom of [5], which is the follow-up of your link above.
Your testsuite seems interesting (thanks for the link), but one advantage of having a fixed set of packages is that these packages might be updated and change, making these edge cases difficult to test. This happened quite a few times with my own list of test packages in the past and this was rather annoying. Spyhawk (talk) 20:20, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

trizen and split packages

Trizen no longer works with split packages since pacman 5.1: [6] Give it a week or two and then give it a red entry in the table? -- Alad (talk) 11:49, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I think granting a red label due to a bug shouldn't happen instantly since the bug can be fixed soon. Let's give it two weeks (one week is too short time). Kitsunyan (talk) 15:51, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Who would benefit from that? This article is only and most factual source of comparison for AUR helpers. It would only be fair to trizen and other helpers if entries changed as soon as they were broken or fixed. -- Svito (talk) 12:15, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
It's to give some leeway to the authors who write these projects in their free time. -- Alad (talk) 14:45, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
[7] -- Alad (talk) 09:01, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Add pacui to the table?

[8] pacuiAUR is kind of an aur-helper-helper. It wraps AUR helpers to provide a nice tui and also adds some of its own features. I don't really use it my self so I can't comment on how it would fit in the table/what results it would get. Just wondering if it fits here. Morganamilo (talk) 07:27, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Seems to be aimed at Manjaro going by the amount of partial upgrade it runs (e.g. [9]) and weird stuff like "update systemd first". Former alone makes it unsuitable for inclusion in the wiki.
There's some other of these GUIs around that might fit though, like argonAUR. Not sure where to put them; a separate section perhaps? They don't really have unique functionality of their own besides a modified user interface. -- Alad (talk) 09:50, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
A new section like Pacman tips#Graphical front-ends could work. Probably wont be too useful if argon ends up being the only one that's suitable for inclusion. Morganamilo (talk) 12:37, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Add back pikaur

I checked most of discussions ([10] and few others), relevant commit and I think while Actionless did not create discussion after making disagreeable changes in the past his edits should not be taken as an insult or attack on the article or anyone involved. He believed what he did was right, it is easy to revert, explain what he did wrong so he can improve and we can move on. As long as he does not break CoC occasional bad edits should be allowed to happen and will be gracefully reverted same day anyway.

As I remember Kynikos was in favor of BOLD principle, and even our own CoC starts with respect (it is beautifully written). And as much as we look up to Wikipedia for guidance on rules and practices there is still room for improvement, both systemic and personal in actually applying them to our interactions with people.

-- Svito (talk) 22:49, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Re-added the entry; while there's reasonable cause to remove the author from the wiki, there arguably is not for his project. Now let's close this discussion and move on to #Native_pacman_criteria_and_IO_manipulation. -- Alad (talk) 10:55, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
@Svito every AUR helper author so far has wonderfully played by the rules, both in spirit and letter, and has made positive contributions to other AUR helpers. The pikaur author does none of that (on the contrary, see his aggressive behavior in for example [11] and [12], where he accuses others of misusing the table criteria which he now does himself) and I'm done with indulging both him and his project. -- Alad (talk) 09:06, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
I just looked at [13] to see on the author response, and as expected 1. personal attacks 2. repeating the same point over and over without listing to reasonable argument presented by others. With that mind it's already more than generous that the author is still allowed to post on this wiki. -- Alad (talk) 09:38, 12 June 2018 (UTC):
You need to point out any particular wiki rules violation or smth more than saying what your emotions are touched. Actionless (talk) 09:46, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
>You need to point out any particular wiki rules violation or smth more than saying what your emotions are touched
No problem.
Congratulations on violating so many rules at once. And with that: [14] -- Alad (talk) 09:51, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
I'd like to reopen this discussion, and point out all the answers found here: https://github.com/actionless/pikaur/issues/201 One really has to discuss, what to do with pikaur from now on, regarding the table in the wiki. I surely can only speak for myself, but I am not interested in validating the technical claims made by Actionless regarding pikaur, to ensure, that it is really doing what he claims it to be doing. Since the table should give a technical overview, that has to be done, and I am not sure, if anyone else is willing to do this, after this discussion. Polygamma (talk) 20:15, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
As I pointed out in #Proposal I'm definitely done with investing any more time in this. After 200 comments on github I thought to have found a satisfactory solution, then out of the blue the pikaur author started making preposterous remarks on other helper authors with no technical value or relevance whatsoever. Since furthermore the project is in constant shift and no real documentation is given, expecting to keep such entry updated is beyond reasonable. Unless there's volounteers I suggest to remove the entry again and leave some notice similar to what's done in Bitcoin#Bitcoin software. -- Alad (talk) 20:46, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
I have a better idea: move the pikaur entry to the discussion with an appropriate note. -- Alad (talk) 08:57, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Done, closing. -- Alad (talk) 09:10, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
You might go even further and more to the point. Consider changing the note in AUR helpers#Build and search to something like this:
Note: The content of this section is peer-reviewed and modifications require a discussion in Talk:AUR helpers. Furthermore, to avoid unreasonable competition and abuse of the specified criteria to get "greener" results, only projects whose development is driven by purely technical arguments can be listed in the tables.
I'm not sure if the motivation is understandable by just reading the note, maybe you can come up with something better. -- Lahwaacz (talk) 21:50, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
This is a bit over the top. New wording would imply that something bad like this already happened and to be expected to happen again in the future. Worst case scenario of resolving original topic that I opened already happened and I regret taking any part in it. There is no reason to push narratives even further. I want this misunderstanding to end and be forgotten not engraved into Draconian laws. -- Svito (talk) 22:26, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
I agree that this is an exceptional case only so I don't think stricter notes/wordings are necessary. -- Alad (talk) 12:16, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
I agree, that going further would be too much. But I've got one question to @Svito - Why do you think, that this is only a "misunderstanding"? And at which point? Polygamma (talk) 17:01, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
That is not exactly what I said. I do not fully appreciate being asked a public response in a closed thread.
I think it is fair to say (and I checked on this privately) that there was a misunderstanding of the issue from Actionless' side when this begun escalating. Unfortunately for him he was clueless in this social situation which may be possible result of different cultural exposure as well as lack of social experience on his side. I cannot blame him for being human and making mistakes provided he is willing to learn from them and improve as an individual in order to bring benefit to himself and others.
When I opened this issue I asked everybody to try not taking this issue too personally. Having prejudice against somebody just makes you hate that character in your head when in reality he is just like you but born and learned differently.
-- Svito (talk) 20:07, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Apparently misogeny is "just a misunderstanding". I have no interest in pursuing this further here; it should however be clear that such behavior is absolutely not tolerated, be it on ArchWiki or other parts of the Arch community, and regardless if by users or staff. -- Alad (talk) 09:52, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Native pacman criteria and IO manipulation

Proposal summary

do not separate commands or their actions
do not suppress or force pacman behavior by using anything besides native pacman flags, e. g. by altering stdin, stdout

or (proposed in issue #201)

do not modify the pacman prompt

Latter might be overly broad as it includes --noconfirm, but it might make sense when adding "by default". Note: --ask "modifies" the prompt in the sense that it reverses it. -- Alad (talk) 09:00, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Required package update frequency

How often does a package have to be updated to remain in 'Active'?

  • bauerbill - last update: 2017-10-03
  • aura - last update: 2017-10-07

—This unsigned comment is by J1simon (talk) 13:45, 20 June 2018 (UTC). Please sign your posts with ~~~~!

There's no criteria for this. There were, but then people would periodically update their README and call it an "update". See: [15] -- Alad (talk) 13:59, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

aurpublish fork

"Uploading" section includes questionable aurpublish fork initially added here.

Not sure why my original version couldn't be used. Also not sure why any of the changes in this version were never contributed back (though many seem fragile enough I'd never accept them).

My code was apparently licensed by @Edh under the GPL2+, a year and a half before I specified license information -- coincidentally choosing the same license. Not sure if that counts or what it means, but it does sort of tickle me pink. Who remembers to specify a license, but doesn't bother to check the licensing of external code?

Its main difference seems to be, including bloaty options to heuristically analyze the PKGBUILD and verbosely report every substring match for "http[^s]" and whether it supports https (the url _nghttp2_ver=1.31.0 doesn't, the url source+=("https://github.com/nghttp2/nghttp2/...") always did), providing parallelized upload of many PKGBUILDs at once, running updpkgsums in a semi-automated manner (something I've explicitly refused on the grounds it encourages bad habits), failure to enforce --verifysource (which I added after the silent fork I guess), and securely grep'ing the .SRCINFO rather than sourcing unknown and potentially malicious code you yourself just checked into git.

Honestly this seems to be deeply confusing to users, untested, and in the updpkgsums case just encourages bad habits.

—This unsigned comment is by Eschwartz (talk) 15:57, 24 June 2018 (UTC). Please sign your posts with ~~~~!

I removed fork from the article for now. This is definitely concerning but unfortunately not uncommon practice on GitHub where somebody forks unlicensed code and adds license file to it. Feel free to add your version of aurpublish with its description if you like. -- Svito (talk) 11:18, 25 June 2018 (UTC)