-Syon 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)
Comparison table - build directory
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.
The default values I've garnered so far, assuming TMPDIR is not set:
- aurutils: $XDG_CACHE_HOME
- pacaur: $XDG_CACHE_HOME (changed from /tmp, see )
- bauerbill: $PWD/build
- pkgbuilder: $PWD, /tmp when specified with -S
- packer: /tmp (TMPDIR)
- yaourt: /tmp (yaourtrc)
- 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). --Spyhawk (talk) 11:15, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- +1. see also #Multi-thread support. --Indigo (talk) 11:33, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- 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. -- Alad (talk) 13:35, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- +1. see also #Multi-thread support. --Indigo (talk) 11:33, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- AFAIK, besides cower, packer  and bauerbill (
download.shamongst others) have multiple threads. aurutils also uses aria2c for downloads, if that counts.
- The benefits of multiple threads are however not always clear:
- * by my understanding, cower uses multiple threads, but with one query per package  (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
- 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 ... -- 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.
- 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. --Spyhawk (talk) 13:42, 3 April 2016 (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. --Indigo (talk) 14:01, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Unmaintained Aur Helpers
It seems my edit to adding the info about Pacaur being unmaintained was reverted. Are we not allowed to mark aur helpers as unmaintained? What is the proper way to go about letting users know that things like Pacaur are now unmaintained upstream? —This unsigned comment is by Ase1590 (talk) 19:33, 18 December 2017. Please sign your posts with ~~~~!
- Unmaintained helpers are not a big deal since helpers should only be used by people who can solve their own problems (as indicated by the warning at the top of the article). However, if you can demonstrate that a helper actually stops working in a general sense, with no community interest to fix it, you can remove them from the article. (and file a request on AUR as well) -- Alad (talk) 18:43, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
- I would argue that an [unmaintained] tag would be helpful for quickly finding an AUR helper instead of having to futz around on github pages to see that it has not be updated in X amount of months/years and that it has been abandoned. I agree that if an aur helper actually broke due to some update, that it would be a candidate for removal from the AUR helper page. The whole point of wiki info is for at-glance quick info, otherwise, it'd be documentation and not a wiki. Ase1590 (talk) 18:59, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
- That brings other issues. First, you'd have to make a reasonable definition of "unmaintained". Should it be an official statement from the maintainer where he distances himself from the project? Should it be some fixed interval between commits? Should it be how upstream cares for outstanding issues? If you include the last two criteria, 90% of the AUR helpers on this page classifies as "unmaintained" and the value of the tag is lost.
- Second, the "unmaintained" information would have to be continually checked to keep the page factual, which for 23 helpers in AUR helpers#Build and search alone is hardly reasonable. Especially when you as the user already has a nice table at the bottom, which narrows down your choice to 3-4 projects (entries with all the green) already. -- Alad (talk) 19:14, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
- I think we can use your first definition of unmaintained as the formal definition for this page. The developer of Pacaur has made an official statement where he is distancing himself. As for the second point, the "continually checked" argument does not make sense for a wiki, as users are free to edit and update information whenever. All wiki pages can be subject to information rot, just look at some of the less common non-english pages in the arch wiki, which have in one instance in IRC displayed information about configuring arch prior to Systemd integration. Wikis stay up to date so long as other users contribute. Ase1590 (talk) 19:29, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
- It still makes no sense to me as it punishes projects for maintainers declaring them as unmaintained. Other projects could make no such announcement and be left in a far worse state, yet as they would not be marked as "unmaintained", would be prioritized in their consideration. (which again, is not deserved) -- Alad (talk) 19:32, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
- I suppose we could add a softer toned tag such as [project maintainer needed] that way this instead encourages people to pick it up upstream when reading. Formally abandoned packages are going to lose support over time anyway from social media like reddit and those subscribed to the project via things like github, and it can't be helped (especially if the package outright becomes broken/incompatible). Ase1590 (talk) 19:41, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
- That's a notion I can support. I'm not sure on the best format to add such a tag to the page. It seems out of place in the "Specificity" column of the comparison table (since it's not a feature of the project); on the other hand, it's more in plain view there and e.g. aura already mentions an aspect not strictly feature-related (the need for ArchHaskell). -- Alad (talk) 19:51, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
- After thinking about it, I think yours is best. Most attention will be focused on the table as you said earlier, so if the aim is to attract new contributers to a project then it makes most sense for it to be in the highest visibility area, which in this case is the comparison table -- 21:19, 18 December 2017 Ase1590
https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/plasma-git-meta/ have some missing dependencies:
Which other package can I use to test the criteria of being a reliable solver?