Difference between revisions of "User talk:Det"

From ArchWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Vmware bundle install -I switch: new section)
m (Undo revision 188182 by Feydaykyn (talk))
Line 60: Line 60:
 
:Didn't even think of that. However since the Perl alternative is a bit simpler (and teaches people a tiny bit about Perl) I think I'm going to keep it that way.
 
:Didn't even think of that. However since the Perl alternative is a bit simpler (and teaches people a tiny bit about Perl) I think I'm going to keep it that way.
 
:But thanks for pointing that out. The guys in Ubuntu forums just instructed me to use Perl. --[[User:Det|Det]] 11:02, 27 February 2012 (EST)
 
:But thanks for pointing that out. The guys in Ubuntu forums just instructed me to use Perl. --[[User:Det|Det]] 11:02, 27 February 2012 (EST)
 
== Vmware bundle install -I switch ==
 
 
I answered you on my talk page but looks like you missed it. Anyway, I feel my tip should be added back as it allowed some people (including me) to install Vmware. It belongs to the wiki page, instead of being burried in a forum post. I understand your stance against ignoring errors, but this is exactly the case where it is needed.
 

Revision as of 23:25, 7 March 2012

Templates vs links

I'm talking about [1] and [2]. Why did you change them to direct links? --Karol 17:24, 29 October 2011 (EDT)

The thing is that the {{Package AUR|}} templates sadly only lead to a search page showing (only) the said package, while actual links go straight to the package's "home page". --Det 18:33, 29 October 2011 (EDT)
I think we should file a bug report. The AUR should send you to the package page if you run an "exact name" search and there's a result. The search bar is already visible on all pages and the advanced options can still be opened on package pages so it can be left open after a search using "exact name" just like it is now. -- thestinger 23:45, 29 October 2011 (EDT)
@Det, I understand your point, but we're trying to give a more consistent, standardized style to articles (see Help:Style), so please don't use direct links, probably the most proper way to improve this situation is pursuing thestinger's idea on the bug tracker. Can you restore Template:AUR where you removed it? Thank you, we all recognize the valuable work you've been doing on the wiki for so long :) -- Kynikos 10:56, 30 October 2011 (EDT)
Been a while since I last came here. I'll do the bug report in a week or so. My exam week starts tomorrow. --Det 10:30, 23 November 2011 (EST)
Please note: The AUR is essentially in maintenance mode. No new features are planned. If you want a bug fixed, or a feature implemented it's probably best to write a patch and send it to the aur-dev mailing list.
I glanced over the relevant code that would require modification:
This change would not be trivial but is certainly feasible. However, I see nothing wrong with returning a single-result search page.
-- pointone 14:43, 1 December 2011 (EST)
Yeah, well, it's completely unnecessary. The user is going to click the single result anyway. --Det 04:42, 2 December 2011 (EST)
You know, I meant that _having_ to click the single result is completely unnecessary. Is the AUR still in maintenance mode? --Det 16:31, 22 February 2012 (EST)
Note: The AUR is essentially in maintanence mode. No new features are planned. I have no idea if this answers your question and whether the feature request will be implemented or not. Was any such request opened or patch sent? -- Karol 18:04, 22 February 2012 (EST)
I don't think a patch has been sent, however this problem can be solved in two ways:
  1. We use the current query string and if the search returns one value, we output the details of the package instead of the search results. The problem here is that we should probably modify pkg_search_page(), which is already quite complex.
  2. We introduce a new GET variable, e.g. NAME, composing the URL like https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?NAME=someaurpackage and just modify a bit packages.php at the bottom, adding a simple elseif:
if (isset($_GET['ID'])) {
    ...
} elseif (isset($_GET['NAME'])) {
    include('pkg_search_form.php');
    if (!$_GET['NAME'] = urldecode($_GET['NAME'])) {
        print __("Error trying to retrieve package details.")."<br />\n";
    } else {
        if (isset($_COOKIE["AURSID"])) {
            package_details(pkgid_from_name($_GET['NAME']), $_COOKIE["AURSID"]);
        }
        else {
            package_details(pkgid_from_name($_GET['NAME']), null);
        }
    }
} else ...
Of course I can't test this, can somebody confirm?
-- Kynikos 18:50, 22 February 2012 (EST)
This one may work too, still in theory (merging if and elseif):
if (isset($_GET['ID']) || isset($_GET['NAME'])) {
	include('pkg_search_form.php');
	$id = (isset($_GET['ID'])) ? intval($_GET['ID']) : pkgid_from_name(urldecode($_GET['NAME']));
	if (!$id) {
		print __("Error trying to retrieve package details.")."<br />\n";
	} else {
		if (isset($_COOKIE["AURSID"])) {
			package_details($id, $_COOKIE["AURSID"]);
		}
		else {
			package_details($id, null);
		}
	}
} else ...
-- Kynikos 19:14, 22 February 2012 (EST)

seding /etc/rc.d/vmware

sed -i -e "s|/sbin/|/usr/bin/|g" -e "s|/usr/bin/modprobe|/sbin/modprobe|g" /etc/rc.d/vmware

Greyscale 15:24, 25 February 2012 (EST)

Didn't even think of that. However since the Perl alternative is a bit simpler (and teaches people a tiny bit about Perl) I think I'm going to keep it that way.
But thanks for pointing that out. The guys in Ubuntu forums just instructed me to use Perl. --Det 11:02, 27 February 2012 (EST)