Difference between revisions of "Talk:Arch User Repository"

From ArchWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m (→‎Current: Uploading packages: restore signature lost with https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php?title=Talk:Arch_User_Repository&diff=next&oldid=558896)
m (→‎Improve Comment syntax section: Use a public link for the example of 12-digit hash)
 
(240 intermediate revisions by 12 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
== What is the correct AUR forum section? ==
+
== contribute to existing package ==
 +
what is the best way to contribute to an existing AUR package? i cloned one and tried to push but it gave me a permission error --[[User:Soloturn|Soloturn]] ([[User talk:Soloturn|talk]]) 16:04, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
  
[[Arch_User_Repository#Submitting_packages]] says it's [https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewforum.php?id=4], but we also have [https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewforum.php?id=38]. One of them should be added to [[Arch_User_Repository#I_have_a_PKGBUILD_I_would_like_to_submit.3B_can_someone_check_it_to_see_if_there_are_any_errors.3F]]. -- [[User:Karol|Karol]] ([[User talk:Karol|talk]]) 12:30, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
+
:Users are not allowed to modify something owned by another user. It's no different from cloning a Github repository and trying to push to that. The equivalent of submitting an issue would be leaving a comment with a patch file. The AUR platform in particular allows collaboration features -- you may request that a maintainer grant you push access by adding your name as a co-maintainer. If the package is broken or out of date, see [[Arch User Repository#Foo in the AUR is outdated; what should I do?]]
  
== Markdown Syntax ==
+
:This is possibly something that we should make clear in a FAQ entry. -- [[User:Eschwartz|Eschwartz]] ([[User talk:Eschwartz|talk]]) 19:49, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
  
Should there be a Markdown syntax section? [https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2017-December/033697.html][https://git.archlinux.org/aurweb.git/log/?id=v4.6.0] All those seem to work: [https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/chromium-snapshot-bin/#comment-589706 link] —'''<span style="text-shadow:grey 0.1em 0.1em 0.1em; font-size:110%">[[User:Det|<font color="gold">D</font><font color="orange">e</font><font color="red">t</font>]][[User talk:Det|<sup><font color="white">talk</font></sup>]]</span>''' 16:24, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
+
::I was thinking about this while writing a [[Talk:Arch User Repository#Proposal: Other requests|proposal regarding "Other requests"]]. It is possible to request a package be disowned with "Orphan"; why not add "Co-maintain" to send a request to ask for permission to assist with a package's maintenance? Of course, it would not be unnecessary to send that request to the mailing list, and there's always the AUR comments or the forums for users to contact a maintainer otherwise; but having the feature built in to the AUR would allow us to add a fourth subsection here to recommend ground rules and possibly expedite the process of adding co-maintainers when packagers are interested in doing so. [[User:Quequotion|quequotion]] ([[User talk:Quequotion|talk]]) 14:45, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
  
:Oh wow, yes please. I had no idea that this was possible. And it's still unclear to me what syntax it uses. —[[User:Ostiensis|Ostiensis]] ([[User talk:Ostiensis|talk]]) 20:52, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
+
:::Rather than an FAQ, maybe add a bullet point under "Maintaining packages". Question: Who has the right to use "Manage Co-Maintainers"? [[User:Quequotion|quequotion]] ([[User talk:Quequotion|talk]]) 15:07, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
  
::Well, there's a preliminary section: [[Arch_User_Repository#Comment_syntax]]. --'''<span style="text-shadow:grey 0.1em 0.1em 0.1em; font-size:110%">[[User:Det|<font color="gold">D</font><font color="orange">e</font><font color="red">t</font>]][[User talk:Det|<sup><font color="white">talk</font></sup>]]</span>''' 22:28, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
+
::::<s>Closing proposal below, now implemented</s>. Leaving discussion open: in the future, we may want to break long bulleted lists like "Rules of Submission" and "Maintaining Packages" into subsections. This would make it more convenient to link to specific points in the list, which in turn would be convenient if we still want an FAQ such as "How can I contribute to an existing package?" (which should link to adopting orphaned packages, commenting on a package, and adding co-maintainters) [[User:Quequotion|quequotion]] ([[User talk:Quequotion|talk]]) 09:31, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
  
:::[https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php?title=Arch_User_Repository&diff=502556&oldid=502552] Well, I don't know how to do that, since they only implemented a small part of it? --'''<span style="text-shadow:grey 0.1em 0.1em 0.1em; font-size:110%">[[User:Det|<font color="gold">D</font><font color="orange">e</font><font color="red">t</font>]][[User talk:Det|<sup><font color="white">talk</font></sup>]]</span>''' 22:35, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
+
:::::Since the reversion, documenting how to add co-maintainers has been absorbed into the proposal for [[User talk:Quequotion/AUR submission guidelines#Maintaining packages|AUR submission guidelines]]. [[User:Quequotion|quequotion]] ([[User talk:Quequotion|talk]]) 12:07, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  
::::[https://git.archlinux.org/aurweb.git/commit/?id=9aa4203c7efd5ef1015eb32eca5e0764a5afe183 Here] they use the [https://python-markdown.github.io/ Python-Markdown] library, which "is almost completely compliant with the reference implementation, though there are a few very minor [https://python-markdown.github.io/#differences differences]." -- [[User:Lahwaacz|Lahwaacz]] ([[User talk:Lahwaacz|talk]]) 22:50, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
+
=== Proposal: How can I contribute to an existing package? ===
 +
{{Comment|No longer clear where this question would fit--splitting the content of the page between a "maintainter-oriented" page and a "user-oriented" page overlooks the fact that AUR package maintainers and AUR users ''may be the same people''.}}
 +
If the package is [[User:Quequotion/AUR submission guidelines#Orphan|orphaned]] you may [[User:Quequotion/AUR submission guidelines#Maintaining packages|adopt it]], otherwise you may post your idea [[User:Quequotion/Arch User Repository#Commenting on packages|in its comments]] or ask to be [[User:Quequotion/AUR submission guidelines#Maintaining packages|appointed as a co-maintainer]].
  
:Thanks for that. FWIW I've never seen that multiline code syntax before, so I wonder if it *is* some strange home-brew markdown. —[[User:Ostiensis|Ostiensis]] ([[User talk:Ostiensis|talk]]) 22:37, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
+
== Integrate FAQ content ==
  
== FAQ - outdated package ==
+
Truncate FAQs' answers as much as possible, linking to an appropriate page or (proposed) section of the AUR page. Note that some content must be transferred to the [[AUR submission guidelines]].
  
Do you understand what the comment means "When we are talking about a package which is flagged out of date for more than 3 months and is in general not updated for a long time, please add this in your orphan request. " ?
+
If you'd like to discuss the proposal as a whole, do so in this header; use [[Template:Comment|comments]] within individual subsections to discuss them. [[User:Quequotion|quequotion]] ([[User talk:Quequotion|talk]]) 04:42, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
[[User:Kewl|Kewl]] ([[User talk:Kewl|talk]]) 15:49, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 
  
:When people request a package to be orphaned because the current maintainer does not respond to out-of-date notifications, it should be clarified in the request to speed up the resolution. -- [[User:Lahwaacz|Lahwaacz]] ([[User talk:Lahwaacz|talk]]) 18:05, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
+
If you'd like to see how this page should look, and get a history without other changes, I've restored its [[User:Quequotion/Arch User Repository|full page draft]]. [[User:Quequotion|quequotion]] ([[User talk:Quequotion|talk]]) 10:14, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  
::Yes indeed and what about the 2 weeks vs the 3 months difference in the comments? This is what I don't get, if this is more than 3 months we should say in the comments "it has been 4 months" but if it has been let say 2 months we should not mention it? The rule is not clear and I am wondering if it is more urgent to find an adopter for a package that has not been updated for 2 years or for 3 weeks. In the latter case it does seem more urgent, rather the opposite then. [[User:Kewl|Kewl]] ([[User talk:Kewl|talk]]) 18:57, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
+
:There are a lot of changes to review; so I've compiled a rundown of them [[User talk:Quequotion/Arch User Repository#Breakdown_of_changes|on the talk page of the draft]]. [[User:Quequotion|quequotion]] ([[User talk:Quequotion|talk]]) 13:45, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  
:::I think that the 2 weeks are for the maintainers to react to the request, even if it is not due to out-of-date package. Anyway, the FAQ entries are not strict, I doubt that the 3 months are obligatory. -- [[User:Lahwaacz|Lahwaacz]] ([[User talk:Lahwaacz|talk]]) 19:15, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
+
:Please keep drafts on a dedicated page. ([[Special:Diff/575147]]) Closing the sections below. -- [[User:Alad|Alad]] ([[User talk:Alad|talk]]) 13:18, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
::::I have rephrased providing some more details in line with the AUR request template. The 3 months does not seems to be anything official, the 2 weeks neither but sounds reasonable. Feel free to amend or revert. [[User:Kewl|Kewl]] ([[User talk:Kewl|talk]]) 19:41, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 
  
== Creating a new package: uploading an existing package to AUR ==
+
== <s>Revert to 03.02.2019 revision</s> ==
  
The "Creating a new package" section should assist two possible workflows: one wherein a user sets out to create an AUR package from scratch, and can thus start with a {{ic|git clone}}; and another wherein a user ''already has a package'' (be it a git repository or not), then decides to upload it to AUR.
+
After discussing the many changes to this article, me and the [[TU]] team agreed to revert this page to the [https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php?title=Arch_User_Repository&oldid=565770 03.02.2019 revision]. Besides that most of the changes were one-sided, many of them change meaning or add incorrect information (such as the article mentioning that adopting an orphaned package allows to push changes, while the mere fact of pushing to an orphaned package automatically adopts it) or reduce clarity (such as the rewording on .SRCINFO regeneration or the "source format" term in [[Arch_User_Repository#What_is_the_difference_between_the_Arch_User_Repository_and_the_community_repository?]]).
  
I've added a rewrite of "Uploading packages" to the proposal, hoping to eliminate redundancy between the two sections.
+
To avoid this in future, I've moved the content in [[AUR#Sharing and submitting packages]] to a seperate protected page: [[AUR submission guidelines]]. That way the official guidelines for package submission cannot be changed without prior notice, while content related to retrieval and installation of AUR packages may still be edited freely. If there are suggestions to make new changes to [[AUR submission guidelines]], please create a '''draft''' page and post it on the talk page of that article. The same holds for any other proposed changes to the [[AUR]] article, especially if major. -- [[User:Alad|Alad]] ([[User talk:Alad|talk]]) 16:29, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  
The goals of this proposal are as follows:
+
:Obviously I'm going to have to ask you to reconsider. You're talking about months of careful work, by multiple authors, much of it accurate and positive changes. I had asked about pushing to adopt, but no one responded. I waited for weeks, even months to debate many of these changes with proposals clearly laid out here as well as a full-page draft; the only on-page response they garnered was the early-on, abusive, dismissal by eshwartz, mostly on the grounds that it would be too much work. It wasn't; I got it done (via many fine, precise and sequenced edits). Some smaller edits I made without a proposal, but all the major changes were here, some for months, waiting for a legitimate debate. I had a lot of positive (though unofficial) feedback on IRC, even from eschwartz, about the idea of integrating the FAQ; the only lack of consensus there was in regard to ''how''. The minimum I waited between implementing any proposal (after I decided to go ahead with improving the page in lieu of any further feedback) was a week, and no one responded after they were implemented either (everything remained on the page for at least a week after closure). I even [https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=244634 opened a thread in the forums] to (unofficially) discuss these changes. We've had plenty of opportunities to talk about this. [[User:Quequotion|quequotion]] ([[User talk:Quequotion|talk]]) 00:34, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
* Reduce listed git commands in the article to those ''specific to using the AUR'' (eg, when it is necessary to specify an AUR repository url) by describing the procedure and linking to appropriate sections in the existing [[Git]] article. Avoiding a redundant git tutorial has been a point of contention on this article and I think this is the best resolution.
 
* Simplify the language of these sections to reduce possible confusion and misinterpretations. I think we can help new users get the hang of this more quickly and reduce the size of the article.
 
* Be more ''technically'' correct, such as specifying {{ic|pkgbase}} instead of "package name" for the AUR remote repository. This may require new users to learn more about PKGBUILDs before attempting to upload one to the AUR, but that is probably a good thing.
 
  
With the right wording, and proper integration with other articles in the wiki, we can cover more bases with a smaller article and not leave as many users to bang their heads against the wiki until they figure it out. [[User:Quequotion|quequotion]] ([[User talk:Quequotion|talk]]) 16:43, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
+
::The wiki is, by definition, a collaborative space where multiple editors ensure content is representative and of high quality. In this case, the content is also the main (and for most purposes, authorative) documentation of the AUR. When then a single editor rewrites the article after showing his [https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?pid=1845901#p1845901 impatience with other editors] - especially when this rewrite results in inaccurate content - then it's clear that restoring a previous revision is more important than preserving the "months of careful work" from that single editor.
 +
::I'd say that the main issue here is the way proposals were presented, i.e. a dense proposal/comment/draft format rather than the usual, ''seperate'' draft page (with its own, seperate talk page). A good example of the latter approach is [[Talk:GRUB#Manually_generate_grub.cfg]] and the draft pages [[User_talk:Eschwartz/Grub]] and [[User:Eschwartz/Grub]]. It takes time to merge such changes - the wiki is over 14 years now and its documentation is relied upon by thousands of Arch and Linux users in general. A few months more or less for implementing "stylistic" changes are then hardly as important as ensuring content remains accurate and representative.
 +
::In short: the page stays as is, but I will look (and encourage other TUs to look) at any draft ''pages'' such as [[User:Quequotion/AUR submission guidelines]] as time allows. -- [[User:Alad|Alad]] ([[User talk:Alad|talk]]) 13:43, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 +
:::I wasn't upset with Polyzen so much as that the edit went unchallenged. I was trying to illustrate what a mess things were--I had made, and abandoned, a similar proposal not long before. This actually led to improvements in the Rules for Submission, regarding submitting binary packages (I kept some of that edit; "deliverables"). You could also say it was a passive-aggressive attempt to get attention to the proposed changes.
 +
:::In fact I had a full page draft, which was linked from here and the forum thread. No one ever commented it; not sure if anyone even looked at it. The reason I put proposals on the page here is rather simple: the proposal evolved from a smaller one that made sense being on the page into a huge one that didn't (the ultimate origin of my desire to fix this page goes back to the dispute over git instructions in "Creating package repositories").
 +
:::What's more, as has been discussed, the information in the May 3rd version of the page is not particularly ''more'' accurate or representative than the page that was reverted. Some of the same inaccuracies are still there, and have been there since years ago, not to mention the FAQ is hard to follow (not everyone is going to ask the same questions when they need this information).
 +
:::In case you haven't noticed, I am not easily discouraged. I'd be happy to make any changes recommended for either draft. See also [[User:Quequotion/Arch User Repository]]. [[User:Quequotion|quequotion]] ([[User talk:Quequotion|talk]]) 15:00, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  
:I think I've done all the nitpicking I need to do here. I'm going to try to leave this alone for a while and wait for feedback. [[User:Quequotion|quequotion]] ([[User talk:Quequotion|talk]]) 13:58, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
+
::::The 3rd ''February'' revision did not have the glaring mistakes pointed out above, and was generally more clear. Reverting to an earlier date was too complicated (as it would involve undoing the work by other editors), so the 3rd February one is the revision the TU team picked. Otherwise I have nothing more to add here. -- [[User:Alad|Alad]] ([[User talk:Alad|talk]]) 15:12, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  
::Since you've completely rewritten 2 sections, you need to wait much longer than 3 days. Also, you should gain some positive feedback before merging this. Finally, note that merging proposals from discussion pages or elsewhere is not an excuse to break [[ArchWiki:Contributing#Do_not_make_complex_edits_at_once]], i.e. the merge should '''not''' be done in just one edit. -- [[User:Lahwaacz|Lahwaacz]] ([[User talk:Lahwaacz|talk]]) 17:58, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
+
:::::You say "glaring mistakes" but I have as yet only been informed of ''two'' attributable to myself (incorrectly guessing that it would be necessary to adopt a package through the aur web interface before one could push changes; and incorrectly rewording an FAQ to say that the AUR provides "packages in source format" which is kind of debatable--not that I want to debate it); neither of which I would say could have caused significant harm or inconvenience to anyone reading the page--not to say they shouldn't be fixed. As I've said, whether its content I created, changed, or has nothing to do with me at all, I don't mind fixing anything; just let me know what needs to be fixed. [[User:Quequotion|quequotion]] ([[User talk:Quequotion|talk]]) 16:14, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  
:::I understand your concerns. It may have been three days since the last edit, but I have been working on this for a week or so. I did get positive feedback, in #archlinux-wiki. As for splitting up the edits, I wouldn't mind doing one section at a time as long as it's understood that ''both'' edits are necessary to avoid redundancy (ie: I can make two edits, one immediately after the other). [[User:Quequotion|quequotion]] ([[User talk:Quequotion|talk]]) 09:19, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
+
::::::Content must be correct ''before'' it is merged to an article, not fixed ''after''. It's as simple as it is obvious. -- [[User:Alad|Alad]] ([[User talk:Alad|talk]]) 16:37, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  
::::Hey quequotion, thanks for taking the time to poperly introduce the changes here first, of course as Lahwaacz said it's sensible to wait longer, since there are many proposed modifications and the discussion looked quite "scary" at a glance, I've restructured it a bit also because it wasn't clear how you intended letting other people discuss each change in a tidy way.
+
== Split FAQ content to Arch User Repository/FAQ page. ==
::::About splitting complex changes, [[ArchWiki:Contributing#Do_not_make_complex_edits_at_once]] doesn't enforce to apply a specific number of edits (one, two, etc.); it instead recommends to split them "according to the various logical steps needed to complete" them. The edit summary that you used was:
 
:::::> "Reduce creating and updating package subsections; replace git tutorials with descriptions linked to archwiki git page and git documentation; move comment about remaining git repositories to requests subsection"
 
::::I can see at least 4 logical steps there: 1) reduce creating package subsection; 2) reduce updating package subsection; 3) replace git tutorials with descriptions linked to archwiki git page and git documentation; 4) move comment about remaining git repositories to requests subsection.
 
::::Based on the number of inline comments in the drafts below, it may even feel more natural to make an edit for each of them, and use your comment as the edit summary ;)
 
::::-- [[User:Kynikos|Kynikos]] ([[User talk:Kynikos|talk]]) 16:43, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 
  
:::::I appreciate that you are trying to support improving the page by recommending a path to merging these changes that might be more acceptable to the other editors. The reason I made the initial edit at once is because it's the cleanest way. Breaking all of the necessary edits into stages will be messy; some things have to be done simultaneously (like moving the warning about git username and email out of one section and into the other, merging a tip into a note in Updating Package Content, etc). If it's really required to be done that way, so long as it is understood that the subsections will be messy and broken until the series of edits is complete. [[User:Quequotion|quequotion]] ([[User talk:Quequotion|talk]]) 09:50, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
+
Have a look at the ratio of [https://i.postimg.cc/MHHcW5b3/aur-slashfaq.png FAQ to page content].
  
::::::About moving content around, [[Help:Procedures#Move a section within the same page]] can easily apply to any portion of content: if you need to move a Warning from one section to another, please open the common supersection (or the whole article) for editing, and move that portion of text in a ''single'' edit without changing its content; only reword it in a subsequent edit if needed. In general, those things that have to be done simultaneously as you noted yourself, should indeed be done simultaneously. This doesn't mean doing ''everything'' simultaneously, only that specific step. I'm sure that you understand that breaking changes into ''logical'' steps means that each small step must be internally coherent, i.e. it should not leave the article in a broken or messy state, unless strictly necessary. It's self evident that splitting a complex change in a series of edits where in the extreme case only one character would be moved at a time is just as illogical and unintelligible as doing everything in a single edit. These patches can be easily merged in a clean and tidy way, this is a good opportunity for you to practise it.
+
I like the the idea of using ''Article''/FAQ for these. [[User:Quequotion|quequotion]] ([[User talk:Quequotion|talk]]) 01:42, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
::::::It's already well explained in [[ArchWiki:Contributing#The 3 fundamental rules]], but this is all to make it as easy as possible for everybody now or in the future to follow what you're doing to this article which belongs to all of us.
 
::::::-- [[User:Kynikos|Kynikos]] ([[User talk:Kynikos|talk]]) 14:40, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 
  
:::::::Subjectively, I agree that making a single edit for each change is a good idea. Objectively, I think in this case it is a recipe for an edit war. I need to know the changes are going to be accepted, in whole, before I break them into stages and make individual edits. I understand the importance of protocol, and I can try to make these edits in as minimal stages as are ''possible'', but I don't want to waste my time. We haven't much discussed the ''content'' of my proposal. I am confident these changes are beneficial; they received positive feedback on IRC, but they need feedback on this talk page as well. [[User:Quequotion|quequotion]] ([[User talk:Quequotion|talk]]) 10:44, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
+
: This makes sense to me. [[User:Jasonwryan|Jasonwryan]] ([[User talk:Jasonwryan|talk]]) 02:16, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  
::::::::From the [[ArchWiki:IRC|#archlinux-wiki rules]]:
+
:: An alternative which doesn't require a new page is merging this to [[FAQ]]. An issue with this approach (presented on IRC) however is that adding AUR content to the "official" FAQ may add some notion of supported-ness for the AUR (and its content in specific). A way around this would be to include the "AUR packages are user produced content. Any use of the provided files is at your own risk." warning as well. -- [[User:Alad|Alad]] ([[User talk:Alad|talk]]) 07:54, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
:::::::::Always follow the three fundamental rules
 
:::::::::''Live discussions are not a replacement for proper edit summaries, or article discussion pages. Always follow ArchWiki:Contributing#The 3 fundamental rules.''
 
::::::::So yes, you do need to reach an agreement on the talk page; anything on IRC is purely informal. -- [[User:Alad|Alad]] ([[User talk:Alad|talk]]) 13:42, 30 November 2018 (UTC)  
 
  
:::::::::I've added my feedback. Following the contribution rules isn't a waste of time, maybe a 5kB+ discussion on whether that's actually the case could instead be an example. I'm happy to properly merge the changes on behalf of quequotion. -- [[User:Kynikos|Kynikos]] ([[User talk:Kynikos|talk]]) 09:56, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
+
::: This would also add a significant amount of content to the official FAQ page, which might be seen as clutter. However, to be honest I'm more interested in ''having this FAQ relocated'' than ''where it ultimately goes''. Also, not sure if I need to clarify, but this is not exclusive of the [[#Integrate FAQ content]] proposals; it would be in the best interest of wherever the FAQ ends up that it is as small as possible when it gets there. [[User:Quequotion|quequotion]] ([[User talk:Quequotion|talk]]) 13:10, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  
::::::::::Thank you. I'd rather perform the merges myself. I suppose I should give it a week before I make edits in case there's any further feedback and to avoid giving anyone an aneurysm. By the way, don't be shy about putting [[Template:Comment|Comments]] in the "Proposal" sections; this is the purpose I created the template for. [[User:Quequotion|quequotion]] ([[User talk:Quequotion|talk]]) 14:21, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
+
== Meaning of the Popularity score? ==
  
:::::::::::No worries, you have the right to merge your drafts in accordance with the contribution rules of course. Yes, please especially consider that several users like me often delay answering (maybe even reading) discussions until the weekend because of time shortage during the week. -- [[User:Kynikos|Kynikos]] ([[User talk:Kynikos|talk]]) 18:42, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
+
Can someone explain what the meaning of the Popularity score is, and how it's calculated? And maybe add that to the wiki?
 +
It doesn't seem to be derived from the number of votes, as some packages with more votes has a lower popularity than others with a lower vote count.
 +
Maybe it's number of installs? Maybe it's time dependent, so recent votes only temporarily increase popularity?
  
::::::::::::It is done. [[User:Quequotion|quequotion]] ([[User talk:Quequotion|talk]]) 13:21, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
+
I got curious about this as a helper like yay prominently displays this value, but I haven't seen it presented in yay's documentation, or here. Or maybe I skimmed them too fast.
  
==== Current: Creating a new package ====
+
[[User:Biowaste|Biowaste]] ([[User talk:Biowaste|talk]]) 00:02, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  
In order to create a new, empty, local Git repository for a package, simply {{ic|git clone}} the remote repository with the corresponding name. If the package does not exist on AUR yet, you will see the following warning:
+
:<s>This is one of many issues my proposal (Integrate FAQ content) for this page and the AUR submission guidelines page handles. If you dig around on the current page, you may find what you are looking for--or if someone could approve the changes we could have the information appropriately documented under [[User:Quequotion/Arch User Repository#Feedback|an improved feedback section]] here, and referenced in [[User:Quequotion/AUR submission guidelines#Promoting packages to the community repository|a section about promoting packages to community]] on the AUR submission guidelines page. [[User:Quequotion|quequotion]] ([[User talk:Quequotion|talk]]) 04:23, 2 November 2019 (UTC)</s>
{{Comment|
 
Terms like "simply" beg the question "In comparison to what?" and, in my opinion, make this sound in fact ''more'' difficult. -- [[User:Quequotion|quequotion]] ([[User talk:Quequotion|talk]]) 13:58, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 
  
:AFAIC I like with your reworded version below, except for the following Comment. -- [[User:Kynikos|Kynikos]] ([[User talk:Kynikos|talk]]) 08:50, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
+
::Your proposal does not answer the question "What is the meaning of the Popularity score?" at all, so please stop pretending that it is a universal solution for every issue related to AUR documentation.
}}
+
::On the [https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/ AUR package list] page, the Popularity column is suffixed with a "?" symbol which has an HTML tooltip explaining how the values are calculated.
 +
::-- [[User:Lahwaacz|Lahwaacz]] ([[User talk:Lahwaacz|talk]]) 10:18, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 +
::: I see. I mistook that this was about votes. Popularity score is a different thing. My mistake. [[User:Quequotion|quequotion]] ([[User talk:Quequotion|talk]]) 15:22, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  
{{hc|$ git clone <nowiki>ssh://</nowiki>aur@aur.archlinux.org/''package_name''.git|
+
== Improve Comment syntax section ==
Cloning into &apos;''package_name''&apos;...
 
warning: You appear to have cloned an empty repository.
 
Checking connectivity... done.}}
 
{{Comment|
 
Technically, AUR repository names should correspond to {{ic|pkgbase}}. I think that should be specified here. -- [[User:Quequotion|quequotion]] ([[User talk:Quequotion|talk]]) 13:58, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 
  
:Yeah, ok, that's technically more accurate, but I'd still mention that {{ic|pkgbase}} most of the times corresponds to the package name.
+
It would be best to give examples of comments syntax right there. Currently there are 6 links in that small section, which would take a lot of time from users and may also be misleading.
:Also, links shouldn't be further formatted (in this case it should be [[PKGBUILD#pkgbase|pkgbase]], not [[PKGBUILD#pkgbase|''pkgbase'']]), see [[Help:Style/Formatting_and_punctuation#Links]].
 
:-- [[User:Kynikos|Kynikos]] ([[User talk:Kynikos|talk]]) 14:45, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 
  
::Italicization does not concern me in the least, but as you admit it is more technically accurate to specify 'pkgbase' here. It does no one any favors to use inspecific terminology like "package name"; the definition of 'pkgbase' is appropriately provided on the PKGBUILD page (as linked in my proposal) and it would be redundant to define it again here. [[User:Quequotion|quequotion]] ([[User talk:Quequotion|talk]]) 16:33, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
+
"Note this implementation has some occasional differences " - would be used much less often than how to just simply markup some code.
 +
I suggest main information should go first, and examples would be good.
  
:::I don't feel very strongly about this, but without a third opinion I still think that ", which often corresponds to the package name" should be appended to the pkgbase link. -- [[User:Kynikos|Kynikos]] ([[User talk:Kynikos|talk]]) 08:59, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
+
It would be good if comment syntax was given directly on AUR site, but at least here one should be able to very easily navigate to basic comment syntax.
 
+
[[User:Ynikitenko|Ynikitenko]] ([[User talk:Ynikitenko|talk]]) 15:52, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
::::What bothers me about it is that we have a {{ic|pkgname}} variable, a {{ic|pkgbase}} variable, and the words "package name" referring to both. I considered changing the link text to "[[PKGBUILD#pkgbase|package name]]"; but it seems a little dissonant. I think the opportunity to learn about {{ic|pkgbase}} is also an important one, in case a user ever decides to upload a split package. [[User:Quequotion|quequotion]] ([[User talk:Quequotion|talk]]) 12:54, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
+
:In particular those differences should be documented, such as aur-specific features. For example, it is noted that references to git commit hashes will be linkified, but not that this means specifically ''12-digit'' hash references ([https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/ido-ubuntu/#comment-710922 example]). No idea what the specific format expected for Flyspray tickets would be. [[User:Quequotion|quequotion]] ([[User talk:Quequotion|talk]]) 06:52, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 
 
:::::I'm fine with your version if we agree on [[Talk:PKGBUILD#Package name restructuring]]. -- [[User:Kynikos|Kynikos]] ([[User talk:Kynikos|talk]]) 17:37, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 
 
 
::::::[[Talk:PKGBUILD#Package name restructuring]] was solved, so I'm ok with your version now. -- [[User:Kynikos|Kynikos]] ([[User talk:Kynikos|talk]]) 13:14, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 
}}
 
 
 
{{Note|When a package on the AUR is deleted, the git repository is not deleted so it is possible for a deleted package's repository to not be empty when cloned if someone is creating a package with the same name.}}
 
{{Comment|1=<nowiki></nowiki>
 
That's quite a sentence. The statement about what happens when an AUR package is deleted probably belongs in [[#Other_requests]]' "deletion" subsection. -- [[User:Quequotion|quequotion]] ([[User talk:Quequotion|talk]]) 13:58, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 
 
 
:I like your revised Note below, I'm just mentioning that your proposed patch to #Other requests is only visible in [https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php?title=Arch_User_Repository&diff=557544&oldid=554873#Other_requests] (and I'm ok with that too). -- [[User:Kynikos|Kynikos]] ([[User talk:Kynikos|talk]]) 09:03, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 
::I didn't go to the trouble of creating another current/proposal section for this change, but it is implied by proposals for both of these sections. In fact, the "Other requests" section itself is in desperate need of a rewrite, and I may get around to proposing that after these changes go through. I'd probably still want to move this statement as part of the currently proposed changes, but the included language implies the situation with deleted AUR remotes well enough that I wouldn't consider the page in a broken state if it were not explicitly stated. [[User:Quequotion|quequotion]] ([[User talk:Quequotion|talk]]) 12:54, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 
}}
 
 
 
If you have already created a git repository, you can simply create a remote for the AUR git repository and then fetch it:
 
 
 
$ git remote add ''remote_name'' <nowiki>ssh://</nowiki>aur@aur.archlinux.org/''package_name''.git
 
$ git fetch ''remote_name''
 
 
 
{{Comment|
 
As we've been over in regard to this section in particular more than enough times, what is not wanted for the Arch wiki are lists of specific instructions but rather general information from which a procedure can be surmised. Adding {{ic|git init}} here may be too specific, but we really should cover the case of converting an existing package into a git repository. If this can be achieved by reducing this section and relying more on existing pages of the wiki I think it would be best all around. -- [[User:Quequotion|quequotion]] ([[User talk:Quequotion|talk]]) 13:58, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 
 
 
:I like your version below. -- [[User:Kynikos|Kynikos]] ([[User talk:Kynikos|talk]]) 09:20, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 
}}
 
 
 
{{Comment|
 
In the case that ''package_name'' matches a "deleted" repository, pushes from a package created this way will be rejected. -- [[User:Quequotion|quequotion]] ([[User talk:Quequotion|talk]]) 13:58, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 
 
 
:I'm ok with your new Note below. -- [[User:Kynikos|Kynikos]] ([[User talk:Kynikos|talk]]) 09:20, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 
}}
 
 
 
where {{ic|''remote_name''}} is the name of the remote to create (''e.g.,'' "origin"). See [[Git#Using remotes]] for more information.
 
 
 
{{Comment|
 
This would be more effective if it used language matching that in the [[Git]] article. -- [[User:Quequotion|quequotion]] ([[User talk:Quequotion|talk]]) 13:58, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 
 
 
:Again, ok from me. -- [[User:Kynikos|Kynikos]] ([[User talk:Kynikos|talk]]) 09:20, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 
}}
 
 
 
The new package will appear on AUR after you ''push'' the first commit. You can now add the source files to the local copy of the Git repository. See [[#Uploading packages]].
 
 
 
{{Comment|
 
The first two statements should be in the opposite order. -- [[User:Quequotion|quequotion]] ([[User talk:Quequotion|talk]]) 13:58, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 
 
 
:True. You'd actually remove them here because that's explained in [[#Proposal: Updating package content]], which I agree it makes sense as well. -- [[User:Kynikos|Kynikos]] ([[User talk:Kynikos|talk]]) 09:20, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 
}}
 
 
 
{{Warning|Your AUR commits will be authored according to your git user name and email address and it is very difficult to change commits after you push them (see {{Bug|45425}}). If you want to push to AUR under a different name/email, you can change them for this package via {{ic|git config user.name [...]}} and {{ic|git config user.email [...]}}. Review your commits before pushing them!}}
 
 
 
{{Comment|
 
The last bit feels like unnecessary hand-holding. It is important, but isn't this something users should learn to do on their own? -- [[User:Quequotion|quequotion]] ([[User talk:Quequotion|talk]]) 13:58, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 
 
 
:You're referring to the recommendation to "review your commits", ok with removing it.
 
:Also, you're proposing to move the Warning to [[#Proposal: Updating package content]], ok.
 
:-- [[User:Kynikos|Kynikos]] ([[User talk:Kynikos|talk]]) 09:24, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 
}}
 
 
 
==== Proposal: Creating package repositories ====
 
 
 
If you are [[Creating_packages|creating a new package]] from scratch, establish a local Git repository and an AUR remote by [[Git#Getting_a_Git_repository|cloning]] the intended [[PKGBUILD#pkgbase|pkgbase]]. If the package does not yet exist, the following warning is expected:
 
 
 
{{hc|$ git clone <nowiki>ssh://</nowiki>aur@aur.archlinux.org/''pkgbase''.git|
 
Cloning into &apos;''pkgbase''&apos;...
 
warning: You appear to have cloned an empty repository.
 
Checking connectivity... done.}}
 
 
 
{{Note|The repository will not be empty if {{ic|''pkgbase''}} matches a [[#Other_requests|deleted]] package.}}
 
 
 
If you already have a package, [[Git#Getting_a_Git_repository|initialize it]] as a Git repository if it isn't one, and add an AUR remote:
 
 
 
$ git remote add ''label'' <nowiki>ssh://</nowiki>aur@aur.archlinux.org/''pkgbase''.git
 
 
 
Then [[Git#Using remotes|fetch]] this remote to initialize it in the AUR.
 
 
 
{{Note|[https://git-scm.com/docs/git-pull#git-pull---rebasefalsetruemergespreserveinteractive Pull and rebase] to resolve conflicts if {{ic|''pkgbase''}} matches a deleted package.}}
 
 
 
==== Current: Uploading packages ====
 
 
 
{{Comment|
 
At least the title of this section should be changed, as "uploading" (in the sense of creating a remote AUR repository for the package) is already handled above. This section serves to inform users on how to update or upload new package ''content''. -- [[User:Quequotion|quequotion]] ([[User talk:Quequotion|talk]]) 13:58, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 
 
 
:I'd go for something that makes it clearer that this is still about "uploading" the new content to the AUR. Maybe something like "Release a new package version" or "Publish new package content" or similar? -- [[User:Kynikos|Kynikos]] ([[User talk:Kynikos|talk]]) 09:30, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 
 
 
::I like "Publish" because it covers both initial upload and subsequent updates; this is what I was going for with the new title. [[User:Quequotion|quequotion]] ([[User talk:Quequotion|talk]]) 13:31, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 
 
 
:::I see that you changed the draft title to "Publish package content", however omitting "new" misses the "updating" part of the concept, i.e. the section may be mistaken as only regarding the first upload. -- [[User:Kynikos|Kynikos]] ([[User talk:Kynikos|talk]]) 17:42, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 
 
 
::::Makes sense. I also dropped the "-ing"; considering making the same change for the other proposal, (eg. "Creating package repositories" -> "Create a package repository"); not that it matters a great deal. [[User:Quequotion|quequotion]] ([[User talk:Quequotion|talk]]) 04:51, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 
}}
 
 
 
The procedure for uploading packages to the AUR is the same for new packages and package updates. You need at least [[PKGBUILD]] and [[.SRCINFO]] in the top-level directory to ''push'' your package to AUR.
 
 
 
{{Comment|
 
While we're at it, I'd explicitly remind to update ''pkgver'' or at least ''pkgrel''. -- [[User:Kynikos|Kynikos]] ([[User talk:Kynikos|talk]]) 09:34, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 
 
 
:I was also tempted to do this, but I am on the fence about it. At the moment, AUR does not ''require'' every upload to have a new {{ic|pkgver}} or {{ic|pkgrel}}, and that can be conveniently abused if you are pushing ''very'' minor changes (fixing a typo, etc). For comparison, publishing a pacakge in a [https://launchpad.net/~quequotion/+archive/ubuntu/qqdesk Launchpad PPA] requires a source package with a different package version for ''every single upload'', which can become a nightmare of nonsensical numbers very quickly. {{ic|pkgver}} updates are mentioned in the merged {{ic|.SRCINFO}} note, and this may be sufficient. [[User:Quequotion|quequotion]] ([[User talk:Quequotion|talk]]) 13:31, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 
 
 
::Then let's explicitly clarify that {{ic|pkgver}} or {{ic|pkgrel}} should be updated unless pushing ''very'' minor changes that don't require users to reinstall the package. I don't see the point of leaving that unspecified. -- [[User:Kynikos|Kynikos]] ([[User talk:Kynikos|talk]]) 17:46, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 
}}
 
 
 
{{Note|You need to regenerate the {{ic|.SRCINFO}} every time you change {{ic|PKGBUILD}} metadata, such as [[PKGBUILD#pkgver|pkgver()]] updates. Otherwise the AUR will not show the updated version numbers.}}
 
 
 
{{Comment|
 
@quequotion, why would you merge this Note with the "forgot to commit the .SRCINFO" Tip below? I find it confusing. -- [[User:Kynikos|Kynikos]] ([[User talk:Kynikos|talk]]) 09:37, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 
 
 
:Because they both are on the topic of {{ic|.SRCINFO}}. I think it is more confusing if you are considering where this text came from than encountering it for the first time. The purpose is to make sure users understand that {{ic|.SRCINFO}} should be included ''and updated'' in every commit--which overlaps with your concern about {{ic|pkgrel}} and {{ic|pkgver}}. Perhaps they would make more sense in the opposite order. [[User:Quequotion|quequotion]] ([[User talk:Quequotion|talk]]) 14:25, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 
 
 
::I don't mind too much if "forgot to commit the .SRCINFO" is a Note or a Tip, but if you want to group it with the .SRCINFO update reminder, I'd say indeed they should be put in the opposite order, and still on separate bullet points. -- [[User:Kynikos|Kynikos]] ([[User talk:Kynikos|talk]]) 17:51, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 
}}
 
 
 
To upload, add the {{ic|PKGBUILD}}, {{ic|.SRCINFO}}, and any helper files (like ''.install'' files or local source files like ''.patch'') to the ''staging area'' with {{ic|git add}}, commit them to your local tree with a commit message with {{ic|git commit}}, and finally publish the changes to the AUR with {{ic|git push}}.
 
 
 
For example:
 
 
 
$ makepkg --printsrcinfo > .SRCINFO
 
$ git add PKGBUILD .SRCINFO
 
$ git commit -m "''useful commit message''"
 
$ git push
 
 
 
{{Comment|
 
This list of specific commands could probably be shortened or removed. -- [[User:Quequotion|quequotion]] ([[User talk:Quequotion|talk]]) 13:58, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 
 
 
:I don't know, if this was the article for some third-party software I'd agree, but this is the reference document that people use to publish packages to the AUR, I think it can be nice to show an example of how everything is supposed to work together without delving into ''makepkg'' or ''git'' details of course. -- [[User:Kynikos|Kynikos]] ([[User talk:Kynikos|talk]]) 09:41, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 
 
 
::The lists of git commands have been a contentious issue on this page for some time. I have been in too many discussions of them on this talk page. It's really an issue of ArchWiki style, and there are probably other pages that could stand to reduce their lists of explicit commands to things for which no sufficient ArchWiki or third-party documentation can be linked or that are specific to using Archlinux, the AUR, etc. [[User:Quequotion|quequotion]] ([[User talk:Quequotion|talk]]) 13:31, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 
 
 
:::What has been the contention about? Can you link to a relevant past discussion? I couldn't find much by myself, our current discussion archiving method is mostly based on users' memory actually.
 
:::-- [[User:Kynikos|Kynikos]] ([[User talk:Kynikos|talk]]) 18:26, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 
 
 
::::It would take a lot of searching the change log to find the old discussions. In particular I recall having a protracted discussion of the same thing this proposal started with: supporting the case wherein a user already has a package and decides to upload it to AUR. [[User:Quequotion|quequotion]] ([[User talk:Quequotion|talk]]) 23:47, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 
 
 
:::I still stand by what I said: both of us are familiar with git and your instructions would suffice as quick reminders, but users who just want to publish a package in the AUR and are not coders used to version control would need an explicit example to make them feel confident about what they're doing.
 
:::-- [[User:Kynikos|Kynikos]] ([[User talk:Kynikos|talk]]) 18:26, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 
 
 
::::I see your point; but I feel like a procedural list implies complexity while the paragraph format ''looks'' easy. How about adding a [[Template:Note|Note]] in the [[Arch_User_Repository#Submitting_packages|Submitting packages]] subheading to effect of "The AUR uses [[Git]] as a frontend"; users are expected to be familiar with basic Git commands."? [[User:Quequotion|quequotion]] ([[User talk:Quequotion|talk]]) 23:47, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 
 
 
:::I do not understand how removing the procedure to update the package in AUR will help or clarify the wiki in any way. This removal will only result in making it even harder for those willing to collaborate to AUR to do so. Only those, who in a daily basis update packages can make any sense of the current instructions. When I started with arch ten years ago the best asset it had was ts wiki, the best around. Back then the pages where nearly a step by step procedures. This feature only made people like me fall in love with Arch. Now a new wave of users has arrived which believe that only a few experts deserve to use Arch. As a result, the pages now are far more descriptive, aka not useful. Currently, I find myself checking the wikis of other distros often when in the past was unthinkable. Well, this work for many things but not for Arch specific issues like how to submit things to AUR, that thanks to your changes it took me an hour to submit a package when usually it took me 5 min. Yes, my bad, I do not like to remember commands like: `makepkg --printsrcinfo > .SRCINFO`. Please put back the commands, and help people that do not do this task in a daily bases capable of maintaining arch to be the great distribution it is. [[User:Hseara|Hseara]] ([[User talk:Hseara|talk]]) 11:15, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 
 
 
::::It's been replaced by a link to the general documentation for .SRCINFO files, and the first thing on that page is "you can generate it using makepkg --printsrcinfo". I'm not sure I see the problem here...
 
::::Especially consider that these instructions have changed, once upon a time you needed to install the pkgbuild-introspection package and use the mksrcinfo tool. Updating these instructions everywhere they are described is a bit silly... -- [[User:Eschwartz|Eschwartz]] ([[User talk:Eschwartz|talk]]) 16:28, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 
}}
 
 
 
{{Tip|
 
* If you initially forgot to commit the {{ic|.SRCINFO}} and added it in a later commit, the AUR will still reject your pushes because the {{ic|.SRCINFO}} must exist for ''every'' commit. To solve this problem you can use [https://git-scm.com/docs/git-rebase git rebase] with the {{ic|--root}} option or [https://git-scm.com/docs/git-filter-branch git filter-branch] with the {{ic|--tree-filter}} option.
 
* To prevent untracked files from commits and to keep the working directory as clean as possible, exclude all files with {{ic|.gitignore}} and force-add files instead. See [[dotfiles#Using gitignore]].
 
}}
 
 
 
{{Comment|
 
The {{ic|git filter-branch --tree-filter}} method is rather involved. It may be sufficient to recommend something like "filter the git tree or rewrite the git history, such as with {{ic|git rebase --root}}" and let users with greater git expertise figure out about --tree-filter for themselves -- [[User:Quequotion|quequotion]] ([[User talk:Quequotion|talk]]) 13:58, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 
 
 
:Your draft below has an even shorter version. I'd mention the rebase method before tree-filter, and I'd find a way to explicitly mention the --root option, something like "[...] add it by [https://git-scm.com/docs/git-rebase#git-rebase---root rebasing with --root] or [https://git-scm.com/docs/git-filter-branch#git-filter-branch---tree-filterltcommandgt filtering the tree], so [...]". -- [[User:Kynikos|Kynikos]] ([[User talk:Kynikos|talk]]) 09:48, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 
 
 
::I can definetly switch them around. I was considering removing the --tree-filter method altogether because I can't figure out how it is supposed to work, but I trust that whoever put it on the page is better at git than I am. My concern with specifying "--root" is the same as with the lists of git commands: the page shouldn't be redundantly a git tutorial. I used language in the link text ("rebasing all commits") that matches language in the linked git documentation ("rebase all commits") in the hopes that someone following this link (to the --root option) will easily figure out what they need to do. [[User:Quequotion|quequotion]] ([[User talk:Quequotion|talk]]) 13:31, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 
 
 
:::I don't think that referring a specific option by its command-line name ("--root") is any more redundant than using a verbose definition excerpted from the same document. If anything, it's more succinct and unequivocal, which is what we need IMO. -- [[User:Kynikos|Kynikos]] ([[User talk:Kynikos|talk]]) 18:33, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 
}}
 
 
 
==== Proposal: Publish new package content ====
 
 
 
{{Warning|Your commits will be authored with your [[Git#Configuration|global Git name and email address]]. It is very difficult to change commits after pushing them ({{Bug|45425}}). If you want to push to the AUR under different credentials, you can change them per package with {{ic|git config user.name "..."}} and {{ic|git config user.email "..."}}.}}
 
 
 
To upload or update a package, [[Git#Staging_changes|add]] ''at least'' [[PKGBUILD]] and [[.SRCINFO]], then any additional new or modified helper files (such as [[PKGBUILD#install|''.install'']] files or [[PKGBUILD#source|local source files]] such as [[Patching_packages|patches]]), [[Git#Commiting_changes|commit]] with a meaningful commit message, and finally [[Git#Push_to_a_repository|push]] the changes to the AUR.
 
 
 
{{Comment|
 
I might consider agreeing on a more schematic wording as a compromise, to clarify which are supposed to be the separate commands to run; for example:
 
:To upload a new or updated package:
 
:# Regenerate [[.SRCINFO]];
 
:# [[Git#Staging_changes|Add]] ''at least'' {{ic|PKGBUILD}} and {{ic|.SRCINFO}} to the repository index;
 
:#* Also add any additional new or modified helper files (such as [[PKGBUILD#install|''.install'']] files or [[PKGBUILD#source|local source files]] such as [[Patching_packages|patches]]);
 
:# [[Git#Commiting_changes|Commit]] with a meaningful commit message;
 
:# [[Git#Push_to_a_repository|Push]] the changes to the AUR.
 
-- [[User:Kynikos|Kynikos]] ([[User talk:Kynikos|talk]]) 18:26, 7 December 2018 (UTC)}}
 
 
 
{{Note|If {{ic|.SRCINFO}} was not included in your first commit, add it by [https://git-scm.com/docs/git-rebase#git-rebase---root rebasing all commits] or [https://git-scm.com/docs/git-filter-branch#git-filter-branch---tree-filterltcommandgt filtering the tree] so the AUR will permit your initial push. Be sure to regenerate {{ic|.SRCINFO}} whenever {{ic|PKGBUILD}} metadata changes, such as [[PKGBUILD#pkgver|pkgver()]] updates; otherwise the AUR will not show updated version numbers.}}
 
 
 
{{Tip|To keep the working directory and commits as clean as possible, create a {{ic|.gitignore}} that [[dotfiles#Using gitignore|excludes all files]] and force-add files as needed.}}
 

Latest revision as of 06:57, 19 November 2019

contribute to existing package

what is the best way to contribute to an existing AUR package? i cloned one and tried to push but it gave me a permission error --Soloturn (talk) 16:04, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Users are not allowed to modify something owned by another user. It's no different from cloning a Github repository and trying to push to that. The equivalent of submitting an issue would be leaving a comment with a patch file. The AUR platform in particular allows collaboration features -- you may request that a maintainer grant you push access by adding your name as a co-maintainer. If the package is broken or out of date, see Arch User Repository#Foo in the AUR is outdated; what should I do?
This is possibly something that we should make clear in a FAQ entry. -- Eschwartz (talk) 19:49, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
I was thinking about this while writing a proposal regarding "Other requests". It is possible to request a package be disowned with "Orphan"; why not add "Co-maintain" to send a request to ask for permission to assist with a package's maintenance? Of course, it would not be unnecessary to send that request to the mailing list, and there's always the AUR comments or the forums for users to contact a maintainer otherwise; but having the feature built in to the AUR would allow us to add a fourth subsection here to recommend ground rules and possibly expedite the process of adding co-maintainers when packagers are interested in doing so. quequotion (talk) 14:45, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Rather than an FAQ, maybe add a bullet point under "Maintaining packages". Question: Who has the right to use "Manage Co-Maintainers"? quequotion (talk) 15:07, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Closing proposal below, now implemented. Leaving discussion open: in the future, we may want to break long bulleted lists like "Rules of Submission" and "Maintaining Packages" into subsections. This would make it more convenient to link to specific points in the list, which in turn would be convenient if we still want an FAQ such as "How can I contribute to an existing package?" (which should link to adopting orphaned packages, commenting on a package, and adding co-maintainters) quequotion (talk) 09:31, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Since the reversion, documenting how to add co-maintainers has been absorbed into the proposal for AUR submission guidelines. quequotion (talk) 12:07, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Proposal: How can I contribute to an existing package?

Comment: No longer clear where this question would fit--splitting the content of the page between a "maintainter-oriented" page and a "user-oriented" page overlooks the fact that AUR package maintainers and AUR users may be the same people.

If the package is orphaned you may adopt it, otherwise you may post your idea in its comments or ask to be appointed as a co-maintainer.

Integrate FAQ content

Truncate FAQs' answers as much as possible, linking to an appropriate page or (proposed) section of the AUR page. Note that some content must be transferred to the AUR submission guidelines.

If you'd like to discuss the proposal as a whole, do so in this header; use comments within individual subsections to discuss them. quequotion (talk) 04:42, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

If you'd like to see how this page should look, and get a history without other changes, I've restored its full page draft. quequotion (talk) 10:14, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

There are a lot of changes to review; so I've compiled a rundown of them on the talk page of the draft. quequotion (talk) 13:45, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Please keep drafts on a dedicated page. (Special:Diff/575147) Closing the sections below. -- Alad (talk) 13:18, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Revert to 03.02.2019 revision

After discussing the many changes to this article, me and the TU team agreed to revert this page to the 03.02.2019 revision. Besides that most of the changes were one-sided, many of them change meaning or add incorrect information (such as the article mentioning that adopting an orphaned package allows to push changes, while the mere fact of pushing to an orphaned package automatically adopts it) or reduce clarity (such as the rewording on .SRCINFO regeneration or the "source format" term in Arch_User_Repository#What_is_the_difference_between_the_Arch_User_Repository_and_the_community_repository?).

To avoid this in future, I've moved the content in AUR#Sharing and submitting packages to a seperate protected page: AUR submission guidelines. That way the official guidelines for package submission cannot be changed without prior notice, while content related to retrieval and installation of AUR packages may still be edited freely. If there are suggestions to make new changes to AUR submission guidelines, please create a draft page and post it on the talk page of that article. The same holds for any other proposed changes to the AUR article, especially if major. -- Alad (talk) 16:29, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Obviously I'm going to have to ask you to reconsider. You're talking about months of careful work, by multiple authors, much of it accurate and positive changes. I had asked about pushing to adopt, but no one responded. I waited for weeks, even months to debate many of these changes with proposals clearly laid out here as well as a full-page draft; the only on-page response they garnered was the early-on, abusive, dismissal by eshwartz, mostly on the grounds that it would be too much work. It wasn't; I got it done (via many fine, precise and sequenced edits). Some smaller edits I made without a proposal, but all the major changes were here, some for months, waiting for a legitimate debate. I had a lot of positive (though unofficial) feedback on IRC, even from eschwartz, about the idea of integrating the FAQ; the only lack of consensus there was in regard to how. The minimum I waited between implementing any proposal (after I decided to go ahead with improving the page in lieu of any further feedback) was a week, and no one responded after they were implemented either (everything remained on the page for at least a week after closure). I even opened a thread in the forums to (unofficially) discuss these changes. We've had plenty of opportunities to talk about this. quequotion (talk) 00:34, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
The wiki is, by definition, a collaborative space where multiple editors ensure content is representative and of high quality. In this case, the content is also the main (and for most purposes, authorative) documentation of the AUR. When then a single editor rewrites the article after showing his impatience with other editors - especially when this rewrite results in inaccurate content - then it's clear that restoring a previous revision is more important than preserving the "months of careful work" from that single editor.
I'd say that the main issue here is the way proposals were presented, i.e. a dense proposal/comment/draft format rather than the usual, seperate draft page (with its own, seperate talk page). A good example of the latter approach is Talk:GRUB#Manually_generate_grub.cfg and the draft pages User_talk:Eschwartz/Grub and User:Eschwartz/Grub. It takes time to merge such changes - the wiki is over 14 years now and its documentation is relied upon by thousands of Arch and Linux users in general. A few months more or less for implementing "stylistic" changes are then hardly as important as ensuring content remains accurate and representative.
In short: the page stays as is, but I will look (and encourage other TUs to look) at any draft pages such as User:Quequotion/AUR submission guidelines as time allows. -- Alad (talk) 13:43, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
I wasn't upset with Polyzen so much as that the edit went unchallenged. I was trying to illustrate what a mess things were--I had made, and abandoned, a similar proposal not long before. This actually led to improvements in the Rules for Submission, regarding submitting binary packages (I kept some of that edit; "deliverables"). You could also say it was a passive-aggressive attempt to get attention to the proposed changes.
In fact I had a full page draft, which was linked from here and the forum thread. No one ever commented it; not sure if anyone even looked at it. The reason I put proposals on the page here is rather simple: the proposal evolved from a smaller one that made sense being on the page into a huge one that didn't (the ultimate origin of my desire to fix this page goes back to the dispute over git instructions in "Creating package repositories").
What's more, as has been discussed, the information in the May 3rd version of the page is not particularly more accurate or representative than the page that was reverted. Some of the same inaccuracies are still there, and have been there since years ago, not to mention the FAQ is hard to follow (not everyone is going to ask the same questions when they need this information).
In case you haven't noticed, I am not easily discouraged. I'd be happy to make any changes recommended for either draft. See also User:Quequotion/Arch User Repository. quequotion (talk) 15:00, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
The 3rd February revision did not have the glaring mistakes pointed out above, and was generally more clear. Reverting to an earlier date was too complicated (as it would involve undoing the work by other editors), so the 3rd February one is the revision the TU team picked. Otherwise I have nothing more to add here. -- Alad (talk) 15:12, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
You say "glaring mistakes" but I have as yet only been informed of two attributable to myself (incorrectly guessing that it would be necessary to adopt a package through the aur web interface before one could push changes; and incorrectly rewording an FAQ to say that the AUR provides "packages in source format" which is kind of debatable--not that I want to debate it); neither of which I would say could have caused significant harm or inconvenience to anyone reading the page--not to say they shouldn't be fixed. As I've said, whether its content I created, changed, or has nothing to do with me at all, I don't mind fixing anything; just let me know what needs to be fixed. quequotion (talk) 16:14, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Content must be correct before it is merged to an article, not fixed after. It's as simple as it is obvious. -- Alad (talk) 16:37, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Split FAQ content to Arch User Repository/FAQ page.

Have a look at the ratio of FAQ to page content.

I like the the idea of using Article/FAQ for these. quequotion (talk) 01:42, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

This makes sense to me. Jasonwryan (talk) 02:16, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
An alternative which doesn't require a new page is merging this to FAQ. An issue with this approach (presented on IRC) however is that adding AUR content to the "official" FAQ may add some notion of supported-ness for the AUR (and its content in specific). A way around this would be to include the "AUR packages are user produced content. Any use of the provided files is at your own risk." warning as well. -- Alad (talk) 07:54, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
This would also add a significant amount of content to the official FAQ page, which might be seen as clutter. However, to be honest I'm more interested in having this FAQ relocated than where it ultimately goes. Also, not sure if I need to clarify, but this is not exclusive of the #Integrate FAQ content proposals; it would be in the best interest of wherever the FAQ ends up that it is as small as possible when it gets there. quequotion (talk) 13:10, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Meaning of the Popularity score?

Can someone explain what the meaning of the Popularity score is, and how it's calculated? And maybe add that to the wiki? It doesn't seem to be derived from the number of votes, as some packages with more votes has a lower popularity than others with a lower vote count. Maybe it's number of installs? Maybe it's time dependent, so recent votes only temporarily increase popularity?

I got curious about this as a helper like yay prominently displays this value, but I haven't seen it presented in yay's documentation, or here. Or maybe I skimmed them too fast.

Biowaste (talk) 00:02, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

This is one of many issues my proposal (Integrate FAQ content) for this page and the AUR submission guidelines page handles. If you dig around on the current page, you may find what you are looking for--or if someone could approve the changes we could have the information appropriately documented under an improved feedback section here, and referenced in a section about promoting packages to community on the AUR submission guidelines page. quequotion (talk) 04:23, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
Your proposal does not answer the question "What is the meaning of the Popularity score?" at all, so please stop pretending that it is a universal solution for every issue related to AUR documentation.
On the AUR package list page, the Popularity column is suffixed with a "?" symbol which has an HTML tooltip explaining how the values are calculated.
-- Lahwaacz (talk) 10:18, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
I see. I mistook that this was about votes. Popularity score is a different thing. My mistake. quequotion (talk) 15:22, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Improve Comment syntax section

It would be best to give examples of comments syntax right there. Currently there are 6 links in that small section, which would take a lot of time from users and may also be misleading.

"Note this implementation has some occasional differences " - would be used much less often than how to just simply markup some code. I suggest main information should go first, and examples would be good.

It would be good if comment syntax was given directly on AUR site, but at least here one should be able to very easily navigate to basic comment syntax. Ynikitenko (talk) 15:52, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

In particular those differences should be documented, such as aur-specific features. For example, it is noted that references to git commit hashes will be linkified, but not that this means specifically 12-digit hash references (example). No idea what the specific format expected for Flyspray tickets would be. quequotion (talk) 06:52, 19 November 2019 (UTC)