Difference between revisions of "Talk:AUR helpers"

From ArchWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Pakku now support zsh completion: rm closed)
(Move batch interaction as separate column?: add)
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 46: Line 46:
 
::: 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.
 
::: 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)
 
::: 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)
 +
 +
== Move batch interaction as separate column? ==
 +
 +
This is probably a feature most users naturally expect from a program that builds and installs many packages in succession, by definition. It's also not trivial to implement (with only the undocumented {{ic|pacman --ask}} or {{Pkg|pacutils}} providing a proper solution) - see recent edits where helpers that supposedly qualified did not. Helpers that still view all PKGBUILDs ahead of time would get a "Partial" rating. -- [[User:Alad|Alad]] ([[User talk:Alad|talk]]) 08:36, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Revision as of 08:36, 17 May 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)

Reliable Updater

Interested in feedback on possibly adding Reliable Updater as a category to Comparison table.

ie: 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. Cody Learner (talk) 18:49, 22 February 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 FS#56602. -- Alad (talk) 20:02, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
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. Actionless (talk) 20:19, 22 February 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.
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. -- Alad (talk) 22:30, 22 February 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? Actionless (talk) 23:53, 22 February 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. -- Alad (talk) 12:00, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
See #"Reference" implementation for an alternative. -- Alad (talk) 13:29, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
I would argue this is covered by the new "Pacman wrap" column. That said there's some strange cases (e.g. rakudoAUR or nvidia-betaAUR) which some helpers can install successfully but fail to update afterward. Usually this involves version requirements (though note FS#54906). -- Alad (talk) 22:31, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

"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 [1] 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: [2] -- 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 [3]). 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 [4], 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)

Move batch interaction as separate column?

This is probably a feature most users naturally expect from a program that builds and installs many packages in succession, by definition. It's also not trivial to implement (with only the undocumented pacman --ask or pacutils providing a proper solution) - see recent edits where helpers that supposedly qualified did not. Helpers that still view all PKGBUILDs ahead of time would get a "Partial" rating. -- Alad (talk) 08:36, 17 May 2018 (UTC)