Difference between revisions of "Talk:Arch User Repository"

From ArchWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m (→‎Improve Comment syntax section: Use a public link for the example of 12-digit hash)
 
(202 intermediate revisions by 11 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 If the package is broken or out of date, see [[Arch User Repository#Foo in the AUR is outdated; what should I do?]]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> ==
  
I have some issues with the new language introduced here, primarily that it is overly verbose, see inline comments. [[User:Quequotion|quequotion]] ([[User talk:Quequotion|talk]]) 16:28, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
+
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 understand you'd prefer more time to debate, but I did consider [https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php?title=Arch_User_Repository&oldid=562076 this] a minor correction as much of the language is redundant and technically inaccurate. [[User:Quequotion|quequotion]] ([[User talk:Quequotion|talk]]) 19:36, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
+
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)
  
::But it included multiple changes, including both the minor merging of redundant content and the non-minor removal of a policy recommendation using an edit message that was marked as minor and only specified the former... -- [[User:Eschwartz|Eschwartz]] ([[User talk:Eschwartz|talk]]) 19:57, 6 January 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 [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)
  
:::If there are no objections, I plan to merge this proposal soon. [[User:Quequotion|quequotion]] ([[User talk:Quequotion|talk]]) 16:36, 15 January 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 [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)
  
::::This makes 3 changes. Change #1, specifying [[PKGBUILD#Version]] and merging up "otherwise the AUR will not show updated version numbers", I am okay with. Change #2, relegating minor changes to a tip, I haven't changed my mind on -- I still think it should be a "do not" rather than a "you don't have to if you don't want to", and thus disagree with the change. Change #3, linkifying PKGBUILD and .SRCINFO, is confusing since now the latter is linkified twice, and the former is only linkified because the first reference to the PKGBUILD has disappeared from the preceding paragraph. -- [[User:Eschwartz|Eschwartz]] ([[User talk:Eschwartz|talk]]) 17:11, 15 January 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. -- [[User:Alad|Alad]] ([[User talk:Alad|talk]]) 15:12, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  
:::::Thanks for the feedback. I've reintegrated the tip with the paragraph; still avoiding explicitly saying "do not", but meaning the same thing. Regarding the links, I feel like the best way to resolve that is to move "When updating.." to a [[Template:Note]] (because it is an aside; not required for every update) below "To upload..", which comes almost full circle to combining it with the note about retroactively adding {{ic|.SRCINFO}} to the first commit. <s>If</s> Since we are keeping the git tutorial, it makes sense for it to be between them, as the second note is relevant to when this procedure fails in the case that {{ic|.SRCINFO}} is missing from the initial commit.
+
:::::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)
:::::Also, not terribly important, but the tip about {{ic|.gitignore}} fits more logically under "To upload..." than at the end of the section. This is a complex change in the draft, but of course I would do this in stages on the actual article. [[User:Quequotion|quequotion]] ([[User talk:Quequotion|talk]]) 03:41, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 
  
::::::"update its version accordingly and regenerate .SRCINFO; otherwise the AUR will not show updated version numbers" -- this sort of sounds like failure to show updated version numbers is also the issue with not updating the PKGBUILD version. I guess this is not an issue if people think that, but it's awkward wording nevertheless. -- [[User:Eschwartz|Eschwartz]] ([[User talk:Eschwartz|talk]]) 04:11, 16 January 2019 (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)
  
:::::::Once again, thank you for the feedback. I thought of a lot of other ways to word this, but I kept coming around to the best solution being to delete this line and let users read this stuff on the [[PKGBUILD]] and [[.SRCINFO]] pages. Since we're not doing that, my compromise is to reword it as a positive course of action (rather than a warning) and try to be slightly more informative as well (version is not the only thing that may need updating in {{ic|.SRCINFO}}) [[User:Quequotion|quequotion]] ([[User talk:Quequotion|talk]]) 14:22, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
+
== Split FAQ content to Arch User Repository/FAQ page. ==
  
::::::::I broke it into two bullets instead. What do you think of [[Special:Diff/564012]]? -- [[User:Eschwartz|Eschwartz]] ([[User talk:Eschwartz|talk]]) 03:15, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
+
Have a look at the ratio of [https://i.postimg.cc/MHHcW5b3/aur-slashfaq.png FAQ to page content].
  
 +
I like the the idea of using ''Article''/FAQ for these. [[User:Quequotion|quequotion]] ([[User talk:Quequotion|talk]]) 01:42, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  
 +
: This makes sense to me. [[User:Jasonwryan|Jasonwryan]] ([[User talk:Jasonwryan|talk]]) 02:16, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  
::::::I've been out of this discussion for a while so I won't insist too much, but I don't like keeping "When updating a package..." and "Remember to regenerate .SRCINFO..." in a Note, since those are things that must be done most of the times anyway, and now the section looks like a patchwork of colored boxes, not very readable IMO :)
+
:: 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)
::::::I'd reinstate those two points above the "To upload or update a package" paragraph.
 
::::::For the same reason (improve readability) I'd also keep the ".gitignore" Tip at the bottom, since the example of course doesn't deal with .gitignore, and it looks out of context when sandwiched between those Tips/Notes.
 
::::::-- [[User:Kynikos|Kynikos]] ([[User talk:Kynikos|talk]]) 16:11, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 
  
==== Current: Publishing new package content ====
+
::: 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)
  
{{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 "..."}}.}}
+
== Meaning of the Popularity score? ==
  
When releasing a new version of the packaged software,
+
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?
  
{{Comment|To be technically correct, only {{ic|pkgver}} should be updated when releasing a new version of the packaged software and {{ic|pkgrel}} should be updated when releasing a new version of the PKGBUILD. This is documented on the PKGBUILD page, so I'd rather remove this than be more specific here. {{Unsigned|7 January 2019|Quequotion}}
+
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.
  
:I'm okay with the wording that you've used below ("When updating a package..."). -- [[User:Kynikos|Kynikos]] ([[User talk:Kynikos|talk]]) 15:39, 20 January 2019 (UTC)}}
+
[[User:Biowaste|Biowaste]] ([[User talk:Biowaste|talk]]) 00:02, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  
update the [[PKGBUILD#pkgver|pkgver]] or [[PKGBUILD#pkgrel|pkgrel]] variables
+
:<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|I'm tempted to link to [[PKGBUILD#Version]] here instead, so as not to ignore [[PKGBUILD#epoch|epoch]] (even if it should only rarely be used), and to encourage users to thoroughly read these sections on the PKGBUILD page. {{Unsigned|7 January 2019|Quequotion}}
+
::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)
  
:I'm okay too. -- [[User:Kynikos|Kynikos]] ([[User talk:Kynikos|talk]]) 15:32, 20 January 2019 (UTC)}}
+
== Improve Comment syntax section ==
  
to notify all users that an upgrade is needed.
+
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.
  
{{Comment|
+
"Note this implementation has some occasional differences " - would be used much less often than how to just simply markup some code.
The AUR does not send notifications out; users have to check for updates. {{Unsigned|7 January 2019|Quequotion}}
+
I suggest main information should go first, and examples would be good.
  
:That sounds needlessly semantic since users checking for updates will be notified by the fact that the pkgver/pkgrel has been updated, which was how I understood the wiki anyway. -- [[User:Eschwartz|Eschwartz]] ([[User talk:Eschwartz|talk]]) 18:49, 6 January 2019 (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)
::I disagree, but more importantly its redundant with "otherwise the AUR will not show updated version numbers". The statements about updating {{ic|pkgver}}/{{ic|pkgrel}} and regenerating {{ic|.SRCINFO}} can be merged, and removing a technical inaccuracy while reducing redundancy seems like a good idea to me. [[User:Quequotion|quequotion]] ([[User talk:Quequotion|talk]]) 19:36, 6 January 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 ([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)
 
 
:::Then that's a much better rationale (although I still don't see it as a technical inaccuracy) and should have been specified in the first place. I'm not sure why it needs to be repeated in a new paragraph, maybe to highlight the need? If so, could it be reworded to only mention this in the second paragraph? Kynikos, what was your motivation for that specific wording? -- [[User:Eschwartz|Eschwartz]] ([[User talk:Eschwartz|talk]]) 20:00, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 
 
 
::::Sorry for the delay, I didn't have a particular motivation for that wording, I'm perfectly fine if you want to change it, as long as there's still an explicit reminder to update the PKGBUILD version variables. As Eschwartz also guessed above, I didn't use "to notify all users" literally implying that notifications are sent out, but in the sense of "to let all users know", or "so that all users can know/understand" that an upgrade is needed. -- [[User:Kynikos|Kynikos]] ([[User talk:Kynikos|talk]]) 15:22, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 
}}
 
 
 
Do not update
 
 
 
{{Comment|
 
I don't feel comfortable explicitly telling people ''not'' to update for any particular reason. As I said, it is convenient that this is optional, but if people ''want'' to update {{ic|pkgrel}} to fix a typo, that's fine too. I worry saying "Do not..." here will lead to someone spending too much time wondering if the changes they've made to their package are worth an update or not, and/or not updating when it would be advisable to do so. Rather than specify a policy, I think it's better to let users figure out they can do this on their own. {{Unsigned|7 January 2019|Quequotion}}
 
 
 
:We specifically added this by request in [[#Current: Uploading packages]] and I agree with the rationale there. -- [[User:Eschwartz|Eschwartz]] ([[User talk:Eschwartz|talk]]) 18:46, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 
 
 
::If it is necessary to mention this at all, it would be better to say "It is not necessary to update", except that it is long. I feel "Do not" makes a policy statement we could come to regret. I should add, I was surprised to see this particular advice on the page at all; my interpretation of the discussion was that Kynikos's priority was to have a suggestion ''to update pkgver and pkgrel'' on the page, and that my bringing up that this can be avoided for convenience was an aside and not meant to shape policy. Ergo, I have relegated that point to a [[Template:Tip]] where I think it belongs. [[User:Quequotion|quequotion]] ([[User talk:Quequotion|talk]]) 17:05, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 
 
 
:::You're correct about my priority, my only interest here is that there's an explicit reminder to update [[PKGBUILD#Version]].
 
:::This has been discussed also in the parent section, I haven't understood if Eschwartz now is ok with relaxing the strength of the statement, anyway I'll leave any PKGBUILD policy decisions to the TUs, so by default I side Eschwartz here.
 
:::-- [[User:Kynikos|Kynikos]] ([[User talk:Kynikos|talk]]) 15:51, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 
}}
 
 
 
those values if only minor changes to the [[PKGBUILD]] such as the correction of a typo are being published.
 
 
 
Be sure to regenerate [[.SRCINFO]] whenever {{ic|PKGBUILD}} metadata changes, such as {{ic|pkgver()}} updates; otherwise the AUR will not show updated version numbers.
 
 
 
{{Comment|I think these can be combined and would be better placed after the following, which describes process for both the initial upload and subsequent updates. {{Unsigned|7 January 2019|Quequotion}}
 
 
 
:It looks like this is being discussed in the parent section. -- [[User:Kynikos|Kynikos]] ([[User talk:Kynikos|talk]]) 15:53, 20 January 2019 (UTC)}}
 
 
 
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)}}
 
 
 
For example:
 
 
 
$ makepkg --printsrcinfo > .SRCINFO
 
$ git add PKGBUILD .SRCINFO
 
$ git commit -m "''useful commit message''"
 
$ git push
 
 
 
{{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 with --root] 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.}}
 
 
 
{{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.}}
 
 
 
==== Proposal: Publishing 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.
 
 
 
{{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.}}
 
 
 
{{Note|
 
* When updating a package, except for very minor changes (such as fixing a typo) that would not require re-installation of the package, be sure to update its [[PKGBUILD#Version|version]] accordingly.
 
* Remember to regenerate {{ic|.SRCINFO}} on every update to the PKGBUILD; otherwise the AUR will not show updated version numbers or other metadata changes.}}
 
 
 
For example:
 
 
 
$ makepkg --printsrcinfo > .SRCINFO
 
$ git add PKGBUILD .SRCINFO
 
$ git commit -m "''useful commit message''"
 
$ git push
 
 
 
{{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 with --root] 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.}}
 

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)