Difference between revisions of "Talk:AUR helpers"

From ArchWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
("AUR repo diff": new section)
(Required package update frequency: help on signing comments, use of header to quickly distinguish topics, and lists)
 
(326 intermediate revisions by 12 users not shown)
Line 2: Line 2:
 
}}
 
}}
  
== Comparison table - build directory ==
+
== pikaur ==
  
Considering /tmp is mounted as tmpfs on Arch, and the potential downsides from building in RAM (running out of space), I think a column with the default build location for various helpers would be helpful.  
+
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.  
  
The default values I've garnered so far, assuming TMPDIR is not set:
+
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)
  
* aurutils: $XDG_CACHE_HOME
+
{| class="wikitable sortable" width="100%"
* pacaur: $XDG_CACHE_HOME (changed from /tmp, see [https://github.com/rmarquis/pacaur/commit/c5d750f75f040b21249fff100a2c8875348d03d1])
+
! Name !! Written In !! Secure !! Clean build !! Native pacman !! Reliable parser !! Reliable solver !! Split packages !! Git clone !! Diff view !! Batch interaction || Shell completion !! Specificity
* bauerbill: $PWD/build
+
|-
* pkgbuilder: $PWD, /tmp when specified with -S
+
! {{AUR|pikaur}}
* packer: /tmp (TMPDIR)
+
| 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]
* yaourt: /tmp (yaourtrc)
+
|-
 +
|}
  
-- [[User:Alad|Alad]] ([[User talk:Alad|talk]]) 18:16, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
+
== "Reference" implementation ==
  
: Yes, this could be useful. Although you'd want not to use color here, since users that know what they're doing would prefer to use /tmp (or setting up BUILDDIR to /tmp). --[[User:Spyhawk|Spyhawk]] ([[User talk:Spyhawk|talk]]) 11:15, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
+
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.
  
:: +1. see also [[#Multi-thread support]]. --[[User:Indigo|Indigo]] ([[User talk:Indigo|talk]]) 11:33, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
+
I propose a minimal reference implementation with the following points:
::: Well, while it does have benefits for some users, it's still a bad default. As you say though, this is easy enough to change either way, unlike any of the behaviour described in the other columns.
 
::: We could leave out the colors, but mention the drawbacks/benefits in the "meanings" paragraph. -- [[User:Alad|Alad]] ([[User talk:Alad|talk]]) 13:35, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 
  
:::: It is bad default because some users have no idea about what they are doing, but this is strictly related to user preferences. Adding the meaning instead of colors sounds like the perfect solution to me. --[[User:Spyhawk|Spyhawk]] ([[User talk:Spyhawk|talk]]) 14:35, 4 April 2016 (UTC).
+
* 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.
  
== Multi-thread support ==
+
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)
  
This also made me wonder if tools differentiate regarding multi-thread support (seems related, e.g. cower has a defaulted option for it). --[[User:Indigo|Indigo]] ([[User talk:Indigo|talk]]) 11:33, 3 April 2016 (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)
  
: AFAIK, besides cower, packer [http://kmkeen.com/multithreaded-bash/] and bauerbill ({{ic|download.sh}} amongst others) have multiple threads. aurutils also uses aria2c for downloads, if that counts.
+
::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.
: The benefits of multiple threads are however not always clear:  
+
::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)
:: * by my understanding, cower uses multiple threads, but with one query per package [https://github.com/falconindy/cower/blob/master/cower.c#L667] (compare against multiinfo).
 
:: * More generally, tasks (like dependency solving) can be sped up by using different methods which need to be called less often
 
:: * Building packages would almost always be done sequentially: dependencies have to be installed (resulting in pacman locks), and there's {{ic|-j}} in {{ic|makepkg.conf}} anyway.
 
: Regardless, there are some large differences in AUR helper speed (with bauerbill being ahead of the rest). But I'm not sure how to quantify this in the table ... -- [[User:Alad|Alad]] ([[User talk:Alad|talk]]) 12:31, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 
  
:: Multi-thread support doesn't necessarily mean the helper is better. In cower case, multi-thread support was implemented before multiinfo was available in the RPC interface, and as of today using multiinfo is less complex and faster than using multiple info threads. Since it is difficult to implement multiinfo support without an important rewrite, cower multithreading is more a drawback than an advantage.
+
::: 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.
:: As for speed, it's indeed very hard to quantify in a meaningful manner. For example, pacaur dependency solver is slower than bauerbill's solver, but on the other hand it is designed to compute more stuff than other helpers up front in order to avoid bothering the user once the install process is started. --[[User:Spyhawk|Spyhawk]] ([[User talk:Spyhawk|talk]]) 13:42, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
+
::: 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)
  
::: Interesting. Actually, I did not want to induce a "speed" column, rather the opposite. As you both say, always very difficult to choose a fairly universal/comparable benchmark, so "speed" as such is better be left out of comparison (as a column). If one wants to mention it, it might be useful to have a general remark at the top of the table, or somewhere else in the article, quoting some of the influencing factors you name; perhaps linking to (re -j) [[Makepkg#MAKEFLAGS]] and (re Skyhawk's remark above) [[Makepkg#Improving compile times]]. --[[User:Indigo|Indigo]] ([[User talk:Indigo|talk]]) 14:01, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
+
== <s>trizen and split packages</s> ==
  
:::: In hindsight, the only thing of relevance here is the use of the old {{ic|info}} interface over {{ic|multiinfo}} (with newer versions of the RPC, both are identical). For example, cower puts a drastic load on the AUR due to its use of one request per single package. I think the most effective way here is to migrate to helpers that implement the new interface and leave those that don't in the past. -- [[User:Alad|Alad]] ([[User talk:Alad|talk]]) 20:14, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
+
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)
  
== Reliable Updater ==
+
: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)
  
Interested in feedback on possibly adding Reliable Updater as a category to Comparison table.
+
::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)
  
ie:  
+
:::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)
Does it handle accurate update status on VCS packages?
 
Does it handle accurate update status when developer fails to update .SCRINFO? https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/.SRCINFO
 
  
And any other unmentioned situations. [[User:Cody Learner|Cody Learner]] ([[User talk:Cody Learner|talk]]) 18:49, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
+
:::: [https://github.com/trizen/trizen/commit/f0a9dfe408d41117c11c364ed98796eeca9b35c2] -- [[User:Alad|Alad]] ([[User talk:Alad|talk]]) 09:01, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  
:The second is an issue only pacaur has, by design to "improve metadata on the AUR". It has nothing to do with what an AUR helper should do. The first is at best a specificity, since the AUR has no perception of what a VCS package is. See {{Bug|56602}}. -- [[User:Alad|Alad]] ([[User talk:Alad|talk]]) 20:02, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
+
== Add pacui to the table? ==
  
:: I think the most important here to provide reliable testcase to prove the reliability of updater :-) I would suggest mb creating a repo a with some stub PKGBUILDs which could be used as testcases for criterias in the table. [[User:Actionless|Actionless]] ([[User talk:Actionless|talk]]) 20:19, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
+
[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)
  
::: Not sure what a testcase of such would look like, since scoring on the other criteria should guarantee reliable updates apart from some pecularities outlined above.
+
: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.
::: About the second case, it has been suggested before to create some centralized place for testing helpers instead of a few arbitrarily chosen AUR packages. However, since AUR helpers are (by definition) for the AUR, I wonder how you'd go about testing these helpers with an external repository. PKGBUILDs specifically made for testing helpers would not be accepted on AUR anyways as too specific. -- [[User:Alad|Alad]] ([[User talk:Alad|talk]]) 22:30, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
+
: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)
  
:::: And what about adding packages to AUR but with some special prefix in package name (`_stub-package-test-reliable-solver`) and very explicit description ("DON'T INSTALL ME. Stub package intended for testing AUR helpers for 'reliable solver' criteria.") and so on? [[User:Actionless|Actionless]] ([[User talk:Actionless|talk]]) 23:53, 22 February 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)
  
::::: Considering AUR helpers are something that's tolerated instead of supported, I doubt such packages explicitely targeting them with no use otherwise would have a long lifetime. -- [[User:Alad|Alad]] ([[User talk:Alad|talk]]) 12:00, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
+
== <s>Add back pikaur</s> ==
  
== <s>"minimizes user interaction" is a misnomer</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.
  
After that 'criteria' was removed it's leaving some gap in comparison.
+
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.
I think we ned to come up with some better wording to describe those AUR helpers which allowing to review all the packages at once and next it's just building them without interrupting and asking more questions from user for each package.
 
I think it's quite crucial quality for application of such kind and for user it could be quite annoying installing each AUR helper and just trying to install two packages to see if it will ask all the questions right at once or before each package build. [[User:Actionless|Actionless]] ([[User talk:Actionless|talk]]) 20:28, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 
  
: Sorry, i've just noticed what you also added asterisk to Secure field to address that problem. But what do you think about moving it into separate column? Because i don't think it's so much about reviewing PKGBUILDs but also about other kinds of questions, like installing dependencies or package conflicts. [[User:Actionless|Actionless]] ([[User talk:Actionless|talk]]) 20:32, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
+
-- [[User:Svito|Svito]] ([[User talk:Svito|talk]]) 22:49, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  
:: About the other kind, any helper that supports makepkg's --noconfirm can install dependencies without query. I find it questionable to make "predicting conflicts for currently installed packages" or somesuch a core feature (which a separate column implies), since the issue might not present itself in the first place e.g. through a local repo or containers. Not to mention the original point, that you can still get up to 200+ prompts with helpers implementing this feature.
+
: 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)
:: That said, the asterisk was just something I've added quickly. A compromise may be a sensibly named column that isn't colored, akin to the shell completion column. ("linear", "batch" perhaps, compare "linear vs tsort" in [https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php?title=Talk:AUR_helpers&oldid=474640]) -- [[User:Alad|Alad]] ([[User talk:Alad|talk]]) 22:23, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 
  
::: I suggest to simply use "batch inspection" in the specificity column instead of creating a new column. The main purpose of table imho is to be a quick reference of the status of the main steps of the process, rather than being an extensive description of each specific features. [[User:Spyhawk|Spyhawk]] ([[User talk:Spyhawk|talk]]) 16:37, 23 February 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):
  
:::: Sounds good to me. I'll edit it accordingly unless there's more feedback to offer. -- [[User:Alad|Alad]] ([[User talk:Alad|talk]]) 18:15, 23 February 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)
  
::::: Done: [https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php?title=AUR_helpers&diff=511910&oldid=511814]. Suggestions on a precise name for aurman/pacaur's "deep search" feature for the specifity column? (e.g. pkgbuilder, trizen, aurutils have none of that) -- [[User:Alad|Alad]] ([[User talk:Alad|talk]]) 15:19, 24 February 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 am not good at coming up with precise names, but let me explain the intention behind the feature. Maybe that will help one of you coming up with a precise name. Most dep solving algorithms look at the unfulfilled dependencies only, but that can lead to not finding a valid solution on rare occasions. Example: You have package A installed on your system and A needs "B". "B" is being provided by a package called B directly, but you fulfilled that dep with another package called B_1. Now you want to update package A to a newer version and also install package C. C conflicts with B_1, and B_1 only. If the dep solving algo just looks at unfulfilled deps, it will ignore B, because B_1 is installed. But that conflicts with C, so no solution is being found. "Deep search" of aurman ignores everything installed and is thus able to find the solution of removing B_1, installing B and C and upgrading A [[User:Polygamma|Polygamma]] ([[User talk:Polygamma|talk]]) 16:00, 24 February 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)
  
::::::: I had written "dependency solving independent from the installed packages (optional)" for the "deep_search" feature in the specificity column of aurman, but that has been [https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php?title=AUR_helpers&diff=next&oldid=512105 deleted]. Tbh I cannot really follow the argumentation behind the removal. Why should the circumstance that it is almost never needed be a criterium to not put it in that column? It's nevertheless a feature which is unique by that helper, which makes it a specificity. Besides that: If one wants to install some package with another AUR helper and finding a solution fails, that "deep_search" feature could exactly be what he needs. And stating that the column is not a full features list, how does that matter for the removal of the entry? It is just one of many features... If this is the wrong place for a discussion about that removal - sorry, where do I have to put it? [[User:Polygamma|Polygamma]] ([[User talk:Polygamma|talk]]) 07:46, 27 February 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)
  
:::::::: This is the correct place. I think the main objection is that it's a rather long description of a single feature - as you may notice in the column, specifities are usually not longer than a few words. I've went with Spyhawk's proposal for now to use "batched interaction", [https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php?title=AUR_helpers&diff=512180&oldid=512148] but we can leave this discussion open for further proposals. -- [[User:Alad|Alad]] ([[User talk:Alad|talk]]) 11:09, 27 February 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)
  
:::::::: What does "bootstrapping packages" mean? [https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php?title=AUR_helpers&diff=512764&oldid=512724] Also what helpers do support versioned dependencies, and is it really worth including as a specifity due to the rarity of their occurence? Compare to the note on architecture specific fields which could extend instead, adding {{Bug|54906}}. -- [[User:Alad|Alad]] ([[User talk:Alad|talk]]) 15:08, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
+
:::::: Done, closing. -- [[User:Alad|Alad]] ([[User talk:Alad|talk]]) 09:10, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  
::::::::: Well, I googled quite a bit do come up with a term that describes what I mean, maybe the name isn't good. Example is the mingw-w64-gcc package - installing packages for building and then removing them again is meant. Regarding the versioned deps: Two examples I know for sure: trizen and pikaur. Wanting to install "aurman-git>1.0" yields in both cases: Not found. [[User:Polygamma|Polygamma]] ([[User talk:Polygamma|talk]]) 15:20, 5 March 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)
  
:::::::::: Well anything supporting {{ic|makepkg --rmdeps}} can install packages and remove them again. E.g. aurutils can do that to a further extent since it uses a local repo, but it can't build mingw-w64-gcc as it has a too rudimentary dependency solving algorithm.
+
::::::::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'll add a note then with the above bug report and {{ic|aurman}}, {{ic|pacaur}}. I'll leave it to the authors of other helpers to add to the note if their helper supports versioned dependencies. -- [[User:Alad|Alad]] ([[User talk:Alad|talk]]) 15:38, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 
  
::::::::::: I've just used "deep search" and added a link to your awesome post on the aurman dependency algorithm. [https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php?title=AUR_helpers&type=revision&diff=512786&oldid=512784] Is this agreeable enough to close this discussion? -- [[User:Alad|Alad]] ([[User talk:Alad|talk]]) 16:01, 5 March 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)
  
:::::::::::: Seems fine to me :) [[User:Polygamma|Polygamma]] ([[User talk:Polygamma|talk]]) 20:56, 5 March 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)
  
:::::: What about "batched interaction"? [[User:Spyhawk|Spyhawk]] ([[User talk:Spyhawk|talk]]) 17:18, 24 February 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)
  
== <s>Separate table for unmaintained/old helpers</s> ==
+
:::::::::: 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)
  
Right now the table is filled with entries that are no longer relevant apart for historical reasons (pacaur is one example that reached prominence, but there are many others like packer, aurget, burgaur, etc.). Since they technically still "work", I wouldn't remove them from this article, but either:
+
== Native pacman criteria and IO manipulation ==
  
* keep them in the same table with grey-colored columns (compare [[de:AUR Hilfsprogramme]])
+
=== Proposal summary ===
* put them in a separate table
 
* put them in a separate table with grey-colored columns
 
* put them in a list, bulleted or using [[Template:App]] (compare [[Arch-based_distributions#Inactive]])
 
  
Thoughts? -- [[User:Alad|Alad]] ([[User talk:Alad|talk]]) 19:00, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
+
: 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
  
:I think any of those options are good (along with a warning or note). Are any of the older packages simply "feature complete" (no updates since the author considers the program done)?
+
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)
:{{Unsigned|01:22, 26 February 2018‎ |Rdeckard}}
 
  
: I like the solution with the grey-colored columns in the same table the most. Everything stays in place, but it's visually easy to see which projects are still "relevant" [[User:Polygamma|Polygamma]] ([[User talk:Polygamma|talk]]) 09:12, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
+
== Required package update frequency ==
  
:Dealing with the table alone doesn't make much sense, what about the lists above it? Would they be split or greyed out as well? How would you call the split sections - "unmaintained" vs "supported" or something like that? I know that you won't like the sound of "supported" here, but I can't think of a better alternative right now. -- [[User:Lahwaacz|Lahwaacz]] ([[User talk:Lahwaacz|talk]]) 22:57, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
+
How often does a package have to be updated to remain in 'Active'?
:: Would a column with the last update date or last release date give an idea whether the helper is actively maintained or not? -- [[User:Kewl|Kewl]] ([[User talk:Kewl|talk]]) 22:41, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 
  
:::A problem with that is that it would get frequently outdated for the active projects. -- [[User:Lahwaacz|Lahwaacz]] ([[User talk:Lahwaacz|talk]]) 07:52, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
+
* '''bauerbill''' - last update: 2017-10-03
::::True and you think showing only the year of the last release date would not be precise enough? -- [[User:Kewl|Kewl]] ([[User talk:Kewl|talk]]) 08:04, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
+
* '''aura''' - last update: 2017-10-07
  
:::::In my case, aurutils is unlikely to get another release until 2019-2020 so it would appear quite inactive even though it is anything but... -- [[User:Alad|Alad]] ([[User talk:Alad|talk]]) 08:50, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
+
{{Unsigned|13:45, 20 June 2018 (UTC)|J1simon}}
  
::::: You'd need more than a date to decide if a project is actively maintained anyway. Some project are well established with very few bugs, while other got only some recent but very minor code update while still ignoring the most blatant issues for many years. [[User:Spyhawk|Spyhawk]] ([[User talk:Spyhawk|talk]]) 14:25, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
+
: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)
 
 
::::: Then in my opinion splitting the table in 2 sections, maintained/inactive based on your expert judgement of the helpers (a mix of last release date and future expected dev) would be good. Keeping, for the moment at least, the same format eases comparison between current and legacy helpers. -- [[User:Kewl|Kewl]] ([[User talk:Kewl|talk]]) 16:23, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 
 
 
::::: See [[Synchronization_and_backup_programs]], why not using a maintained column like there. -- [[User:Kewl|Kewl]] ([[User talk:Kewl|talk]]) 17:08, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 
 
 
:::::: So I guess [[Template:Yes]] for active development, [[Template:Y]] for inactive but with an "available" maintainer, and [[Template:No]] for unmaintained? -- [[User:Alad|Alad]] ([[User talk:Alad|talk]]) 17:22, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 
 
 
::::::: Fine with me -- [[User:Kewl|Kewl]] ([[User talk:Kewl|talk]]) 18:13, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 
 
 
:::::::: "Expert judgement" is vague and subjective. You probably want to define some explicit criteria (even if they are skewed) so helpers can be judged against the same baseline. [[User:Spyhawk|Spyhawk]] ([[User talk:Spyhawk|talk]]) 20:15, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 
 
 
::::::::: The red column should be easy, i.e. "Projects that were abandoned by the author, in favor of a different project or otherwise" with some explanative link for each entry. Yellow could be when long-standing issues are not addressed. That leaves some edge cases, like when a project has frequent commits but issues are not addressed, but in general you'd give other entries a Yes. -- [[User:Alad|Alad]] ([[User talk:Alad|talk]]) 21:02, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 
 
 
:::::::::: Here's an attempt: A project is "active" if 1/ it isn't officially discontinued/unmaintained, 2/ has a main regular contributor (generally the main author), with some commits of his own at least the past 6 months (in contrast to punctual contributors that work on unimportant issues), 3/ important issues of security and clean build are being actively worked on (commit being pushed or interest in doing so displayed in the past 6 months). That should cover the edge-cases. The proposed duration can be adjusted, ie. ~3 months could be more adequate. [[User:Spyhawk|Spyhawk]] ([[User talk:Spyhawk|talk]]) 08:43, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 
 
 
::::::::::: Sounds ok to me. I'd probably stick to 6 months or more, otherwise projects like Aura which are more reliable since last year would be immediately classified as "inactive". -- [[User:Alad|Alad]] ([[User talk:Alad|talk]]) 15:13, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 
 
 
:::::::::::: Proposal: [https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php?title=AUR_helpers&diff=512792&oldid=512790] -- [[User:Alad|Alad]] ([[User talk:Alad|talk]]) 16:26, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 
:::::::::::: Concerning "general activity" and Rdeckard's comment on "feature complete" helpers, perhaps this could include issue tracking or author reponse (assuming the other criteria are fulfilled). -- [[User:Alad|Alad]] ([[User talk:Alad|talk]]) 16:29, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 
 
 
::::::::::::: I'd put the maintenance column in the front to make helper selection more straightforward, but otherwise LGTM. [[User:Spyhawk|Spyhawk]] ([[User talk:Spyhawk|talk]]) 17:05, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 
 
 
:::::::::::::: Done [https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php?title=AUR_helpers&diff=512818&oldid=512800] cheers -- [[User:Alad|Alad]] ([[User talk:Alad|talk]]) 18:23, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 
 
 
== Default sorting for entries ==
 
 
 
Right now, entries are sorted alphabetically and can be sorted by column by clicking on the respective arrows. I propose to make the default sorting both alphabetically and by "less crap", so people don't have to wade through mixes of red and green. -- [[User:Alad|Alad]] ([[User talk:Alad|talk]]) 16:45, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 
 
 
: Agree, but is this possible to sort by default? See [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Sorting#Sorting_rows_of_a_table MediaWiki] doc. I get a nice result by clicking twice on each column, starting from the last to the first one ("git clone" to "maintenance"). -- [[User:Spyhawk|Spyhawk]] ([[User talk:Spyhawk|talk]]) 00:35, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 
 
 
== "AUR repo diff" ==
 
 
 
[https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php?title=AUR_helpers&curid=4748&diff=512978&oldid=512964] no idea what that's supposed to mean. If it's git diffs, half of the table supports those. -- [[User:Alad|Alad]] ([[User talk:Alad|talk]]) 07:59, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 

Latest revision as of 17:44, 20 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)