Talk:Arch User Repository
- 1 contribute to existing package
- 2 Integrate FAQ content
Proposal: Debugging packages
- 2.3.1 What is the AUR?
- 2.3.2 What kind of packages are permitted on the AUR?
- 2.3.3 How can I vote for packages in the AUR?
- 2.3.4 What is a Trusted User (TU)?
- 2.3.5 What is the difference between foo and foo-git packages?
- 2.3.6 Foo in the AUR is outdated; what should I do?
- 2.3.7 Foo in the AUR does not compile when I run makepkg; what should I do?
- 2.3.8 ERROR: One or more PGP signatures could not be verified!; what should I do?
- 2.3.9 How do I create a PKGBUILD?
- 2.3.10 I have a PKGBUILD I would like to submit; can someone check it to see if there are any errors?
- 2.3.11 How to get a PKGBUILD into the community repository?
- 2.3.12 How can I speed up repeated build processes?
- 2.3.13 What is the difference between foo and foo-git packages?
- 2.3.14 Why has foo disappeared from the AUR?
- 2.3.15 How do I find out if any of my installed packages disappeared from AUR?
- 2.3.16 How can I obtain a list of all AUR packages?
- 3 Improve "Rules of submission" section
Revert to 03.02.2019 revision
PKGBUILD formatting inconsistency
contribute to existing package
- 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 If the package is broken or out of date, see Arch User Repository#Foo in the AUR is outdated; what should I do?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)
- 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)
Proposal: Maintaining packages (Add co-maintainers)
- Additional maintainers can be added to or removed from a package by clicking "Manage Co-Maintainers" under "Package Actions" on the right of its AUR page and editing the list.
Proposal: How can I contribute to an existing package?
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.
- Please keep drafts on a dedicated page. (Special:Diff/575147) Closing the sections below. -- Alad (talk) 13:18, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
The AUR provides various means for users to communicate with package maintainers, provided they have setup an account on the AUR Web Interface.
Commenting on packages
Comments allow users to provide suggestions or respond to updates and maintainers to respond to users or make announcements. The Python-Markdown syntax is supported, which provides basic Markdown syntax for formatting. Maintainers may pin comments by clicking the thumbtack button in their top-right corner.
PKGBUILDs into the comments section; they quickly become obsolete and just end up needlessly taking up lots of space. Instead email those files to the maintainer, or use a pastebin.
Voting for packages
One of the easiest activities for all Arch users is to browse the AUR and vote for their favourite packages. All packages are eligible for adoption by a TU for inclusion in the community repository, and the vote count is one of the considerations in that process; it is in everyone's interest to vote!
While logged in, on the AUR page for a package you may click "Vote for this package" under "Package Actions" on the right. It is also possible to vote from the commandline withAUR, AUR, AUR, or AUR.
Alternatively, if you have set up ssh authentication, you can directly vote from the command line using your ssh key and avoid having to save or type in your AUR password.
ssh email@example.com vote package_name
Flagging packages out-of-date
While logged in, on the AUR page for a package you may click "Flag package as out-of-date" under "Package Actions" on the right. You should also leave a comment indicating details as to why the package is outdated, preferably including links to a release announcement or a new release tarball. Also try to reach out to the maintainer directly by email. If there is no response after two weeks, you may file an orphan request.
pkgverchanges, do not flag them as the maintainer will merely unflag the package and ignore you.
Proposal: Debugging packages
If you are having trouble building a package, read its PKGBUILD and the comments on its AUR page. It is possible that a
PKGBUILD is broken for everyone. If you cannot figure it out on your own, report it to the maintainer (e.g. by posting the errors you are getting in the comments on the AUR page). You may also seek help in the AUR Issues, Discussion & PKGBUILD Requests forum.
- To avoid problems caused by your particular system configuration, build packages in a clean chroot. If the build process still fails in a clean chroot, the issue is probably with the
Avoid common pitfalls:
- Ensure your build environment is up-to-date by upgrading before building anything.
- Ensure you have both and groups installed.
- Use the
-soption with makepkg to check and install all the dependencies needed before starting the build process.
- Try the default makepkg configuration.
- See Makepkg#Troubleshooting for common issues.
What is the AUR?
What kind of packages are permitted on the AUR?
For most cases, everything is permitted, subject to the submission requirements.
How can I vote for packages in the AUR?
See #Voting for packages.
What is a Trusted User (TU)?
What is the difference between foo and foo-git packages?
Many AUR packages come in "stable release" and "unstable development" versions. Development packages usually have a suffix denoting their Version Control System and are not intended for regular use, but may offer new features or bugfixes.
Foo in the AUR is outdated; what should I do?
In the meantime, you can try updating the package yourself by editing the PKGBUILD locally. Sometimes, updates do not require changes to the build or package process, in which case simply updating the
source array is sufficient.
Foo in the AUR does not compile when I run makepkg; what should I do?
You are probably missing something trivial; see #Proposal: Debugging packages.
ERROR: One or more PGP signatures could not be verified!; what should I do?
How do I create a PKGBUILD?
Be sure to check the AUR to avoid duplicating efforts, then see creating packages.
I have a PKGBUILD I would like to submit; can someone check it to see if there are any errors?
There are several channels available to submit your package for review; see Talk:AUR submission guidelines#Proposal: Verifying packages.
How to get a PKGBUILD into the community repository?
How can I speed up repeated build processes?
What is the difference between foo and foo-git packages?
Many AUR packages come in "stable" release and "unstable" development versions. Development packages usually have a suffix denoting their Version Control System and are not intended for regular use, but may offer new features or bugfixes. Because these packages only download the latest available source when you execute makepkg, their
pkgver in the AUR does not reflect upstream changes. Likewise, these packages cannot perform an authenticity checksum on any VCS source.
Why has foo disappeared from the AUR?
It is possible the package has been adopted by a TU and is now in the community repository.
How do I find out if any of my installed packages disappeared from AUR?
The simplest way is to check the HTTP status of the package's AUR page:
$ comm -23 <(pacman -Qqm | sort) <(curl https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.gz | gzip -cd | sort)
How can I obtain a list of all AUR packages?
- See https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.gz
Improve "Rules of submission" section
This section is a lengthy list of bullet points; breaking it down into subsections would make it much more navigable; this may escalate into that later. For now, only rules with changes proposed are listed; unlisted rules remain as they are. quequotion (talk) 14:51, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Proposal: Rules of submission
PKGBUILDs must not duplicate applications in any of the official repositories. Check the official package database; if the package exists, do not submit a duplicate. If the official package is out-of-date, flag it as such. If the official package is broken, or lacking a standard feature, please file a bug report.
- The only exception to this is for packages with extra features enabled and/or patches in comparison to the official ones, in which case
pkgbaseshould be different to express that.
Do not use
replacesin an AUR
PKGBUILDunless the package has been renamed or deprecates another, for example when Ethereal became Wireshark. If a package is an alternate version of an existing package, use
provideswhen the offending package has dependents).
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 3 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)
PKGBUILD formatting inconsistency
When the term "PKGBUILD" is used on this page, the formatting usage is inconsistent, alternating between
PKGBUILD, PKGBUILD, and PKGBUILD seemingly at random. My interpretation of Help:Style/Formatting and punctuation#First instances is that the first relevant mention of the term in each section should be PKGBUILD, with anything after that being simply PKGBUILD.
PKGBUILD does not direct users to a relevant page for more information. Additionally, according to several sections in Help:Style/Formatting_and_punctuation#Specific_cases, the ic tag should be used for brief inline commands, parameters, and keyboard input. From my understanding, this does not fit PKGBUILD.
Regardless of the ruling on this issue, there should at least be global consistency across the page. It looks quite messy to alternate between
PKGBUILD and PKGBUILD without any clear pattern. This discussion could also be extended to PKGBUILD as well, as that page seems to alternate between PKGBUILD and
PKGBUILD without any clear patterns. -- Aeros167 (talk) 10:20, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- As a filename, after the first instance it should be consistently
PKGBUILDunless there is some special reason for it to be PKGBUILD. I fixed a few eariler, but I'll have to make another pass. Consistency of style is one of several ways in which the page was broken by the reversion mentioned above. quequotion (talk) 10:45, 11 June 2019 (UTC)