Talk:Arch User Repository

From ArchWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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 If the package is broken or out of date, see Arch User Repository#Foo in the AUR is outdated; what should I do?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)

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?

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)

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.

  • The markdown implementation has some occasional differences with the official syntax rules.
  • Commit hashes to the Git repository of the package and references to Flyspray tickets are converted to links automatically.
  • Long comments are collapsed and can be expanded on demand.
Tip: Avoid pasting patches or 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 with aurvoteAUR, aurvote-gitAUR, aur-auto-vote-gitAUR, or aurvote-utilsAUR.

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 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.

Note: VCS packages are not considered out-of-date when the pkgver changes, do not flag them as the maintainer will merely unflag the package and ignore you.

Proposal: Debugging packages

Comment: Splitting this section (formerly "Verifying packages") in half between the user-oriented parts and the maintainer-oriented parts, which must be transferred to AUR submission guidelines. quequotion (talk) 04:42, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

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 PKGBUILD.

Avoid common pitfalls:

  1. Ensure your build environment is up-to-date by upgrading before building anything.
  2. Ensure you have both base and base-devel groups installed.
  3. Use the -s option with makepkg to check and install all the dependencies needed before starting the build process.
  4. Try the default makepkg configuration.
  5. See Makepkg#Troubleshooting for common issues.

Proposal: FAQ

What is the AUR?

Comment: Proposing to delete this question entirely. I can find no reason for this to be here; the answer is the page header. Is it possible that someone would read this page and still have this question to ask? quequotion (talk) 14:47, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

What kind of packages are permitted on the AUR?

Comment: This FAQ doesn't really belong here anymore since there is now a separate page for the maintainer-oriented documentation. quequotion (talk) 04:42, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

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)?

The Trusted Users are people chosen to oversee the AUR and maintain PKGBUILDs in the community repository.

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.

See also System maintenance#Use proven software packages and VCS package guidelines.

Foo in the AUR is outdated; what should I do?

See #Flagging packages out-of-date.

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 pkgver or 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?

See Makepkg#ERROR: One or more PGP signatures could not be verified!.

How do I create a PKGBUILD?

Comment: This FAQ doesn't really belong here anymore since there is now a separate page for the maintainer-oriented documentation. quequotion (talk) 04:42, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

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?

Comment: This FAQ doesn't really belong here anymore since there is now a separate page for the maintainer-oriented documentation. quequotion (talk) 04:42, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

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?

Comment: This FAQ doesn't really belong here anymore since there is now a separate page for the maintainer-oriented documentation. quequotion (talk) 04:42, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

See Talk:AUR submission guidelines#Proposal: Promoting packages to the community repository.

How can I speed up repeated build processes?

See Makepkg#Improving compile times.

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.

See also System maintenance#Use proven software packages.

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.

Packages may be deleted if they did not fulfill the submission requirements. See the aur-requests archives for the reason for deletion.

If the package used to exist in AUR3, it might not have been migrated to AUR4. See the #Git repositories for AUR3 packages where these are preserved.

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 | gzip -cd | sort)

How can I obtain a list of all AUR packages?

Comment: Adding a word here, to soften the blow. quequotion (talk) 14:27, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

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

  • Submitted 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 pkgbase should be different to express that.
Comment: Offload some text and make a more far-reaching policy statement via Talk:Arch package guidelines#Proposal: Unofficial packages quequotion (talk) 14:51, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Do not use replaces in an AUR PKGBUILD unless 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 conflicts (and provides when the offending package has dependents).
Note: replaces forces pacman to install the replacement package as an upgrade of the offending package, while conflicts tells pacman to remove the offending package only if the conflicting package is to be installed.
Comment: Although the place to explain replaces is really the PKGBUILD article, I see the need for this blurb with this rule. I think it could be done better though. Particularly I'd like to remove the implication that pacman -Sy is to be used for any purpose. quequotion (talk) 14:51, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Changes to this bullet point are completed. quequotion (talk) 09:09, 4 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 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 PKGBUILD unless 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)
Fixed five more; should be good now. Closing. quequotion (talk) 10:55, 11 June 2019 (UTC)