Talk:Arch User Repository
- 1 What is the correct AUR forum section?
- 2 Markdown Syntax
- 3 FAQ - outdated package
- 4 Creating a new package: uploading an existing package to AUR
What is the correct AUR forum section?
Arch_User_Repository#Submitting_packages says it's , but we also have . 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. -- Karol (talk) 12:30, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
- Oh wow, yes please. I had no idea that this was possible. And it's still unclear to me what syntax it uses. —Ostiensis (talk) 20:52, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for that. FWIW I've never seen that multiline code syntax before, so I wonder if it *is* some strange home-brew markdown. —Ostiensis (talk) 22:37, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
FAQ - outdated package
Do you understand what the comment means "When we are talking about a package which is flagged out of date for more than 3 months and is in general not updated for a long time, please add this in your orphan request. " ? 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- When people request a package to be orphaned because the current maintainer does not respond to out-of-date notifications, it should be clarified in the request to speed up the resolution. -- Lahwaacz (talk) 18:05, 13 January 2018 (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. Kewl (talk) 18:57, 13 January 2018 (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- I think that the 2 weeks are for the maintainers to react to the request, even if it is not due to out-of-date package.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. -- Lahwaacz (talk) 19:15, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Creating a new package: uploading an existing package to AUR
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
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.
I've added a rewrite of "Uploading packages" to the proposal, hoping to eliminate redundancy between the two sections.
The goals of this proposal are as follows:
- 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
pkgbaseinstead 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. quequotion (talk) 16:43, 23 November 2018 (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. quequotion (talk) 13:58, 24 November 2018 (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. -- Lahwaacz (talk) 17:58, 27 November 2018 (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). quequotion (talk) 09:19, 28 November 2018 (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.
- 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 ;)
- -- 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. quequotion (talk) 09:50, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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.
- -- 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. quequotion (talk) 10:44, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
- From the #archlinux-wiki rules:
- 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. -- Alad (talk) 13:42, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
- From the #archlinux-wiki rules:
- 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 Comments in the "Proposal" sections; this is the purpose I created the template for. quequotion (talk) 14:21, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- 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. -- Kynikos (talk) 18:42, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Current: Creating a new package
In order to create a new, empty, local Git repository for a package, simply
git clone the remote repository with the corresponding name. If the package does not exist on AUR yet, you will see the following warning:
$ git clone ssh://firstname.lastname@example.org/package_name.git
Cloning into 'package_name'... warning: You appear to have cloned an empty repository. Checking connectivity... done.
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 ssh://email@example.com/package_name.git $ git fetch remote_name
remote_name is the name of the remote to create (e.g., "origin"). See Git#Using remotes for more information.
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.
git config user.name [...]and
git config user.email [...]. Review your commits before pushing them!
Proposal: Creating package repositories
If you are creating a new package from scratch, establish a local Git repository and an AUR remote by cloning the intended pkgbase. If the package does not yet exist, the following warning is expected:
$ git clone ssh://firstname.lastname@example.org/pkgbase.git
Cloning into 'pkgbase'... warning: You appear to have cloned an empty repository. Checking connectivity... done.
pkgbasematches a deleted package.
If you already have a package, initialize it as a Git repository if it isn't one, and add an AUR remote:
$ git remote add label ssh://email@example.com/pkgbase.git
Then fetch this remote to initialize it in the AUR.
pkgbasematches a deleted package.
Current: Uploading packages
.SRCINFOevery time you change
PKGBUILDmetadata, such as pkgver() updates. Otherwise the AUR will not show the updated version numbers.
To upload, add the
.SRCINFO, and any helper files (like .install files or local source files like .patch) to the staging area with
git add, commit them to your local tree with a commit message with
git commit, and finally publish the changes to the AUR with
$ makepkg --printsrcinfo > .SRCINFO $ git add PKGBUILD .SRCINFO $ git commit -m "useful commit message" $ git push
- If you initially forgot to commit the
.SRCINFOand added it in a later commit, the AUR will still reject your pushes because the
.SRCINFOmust exist for every commit. To solve this problem you can use git rebase with the
--rootoption or git filter-branch with the
- To prevent untracked files from commits and to keep the working directory as clean as possible, exclude all files with
.gitignoreand force-add files instead. See dotfiles#Using gitignore.
Proposal: Publish new package content
git config user.name "..."and
git config user.email "...".
To upload or update a package, add at least PKGBUILD and .SRCINFO, then any additional new or modified helper files (such as .install files or local source files such as patches), commit with a meaningful commit message, and finally push the changes to the AUR.
.SRCINFOwas not included in your first commit, add it by rebasing all commits or filtering the tree so the AUR will permit your initial push. Be sure to regenerate
PKGBUILDmetadata changes, such as pkgver() updates; otherwise the AUR will not show updated version numbers.
.gitignorethat excludes all files and force-add files as needed.