Listing dependencies in your AUR package is NOT optional!

ConnorBehan · 2011-01-11 05:13:38

If I may overstep my authority as a regular Arch user for a moment I need to mention a problem that has become worse recently...

When you submit a PKGBUILD to the AUR, it is not okay to write "depends = ()" unless your package truly has no dependencies outside of base-devel! Just because the AUR lets you submit a package this way, doesn't mean it's good form. This kind of laziness doesn't just make the AUR hard to use but it harms Arch's reputation. Even though it is a "use at your own risk" repository, the AUR is a well known advantage to using Archlinux (see the "source packages" column on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison … tributions) and people expect a "source package" to be a "properly made source package." Making the user keep track of dependencies is a bad idea and because this was common in Slackware, it is one of the main reasons Archlinux was formed in the first place!

Figuring out the dependencies can sometimes be tricky. Consult the homepage of the program you are packaging, use the "namcap" program or run "ldd" or "readelf -d" on the binaries that get built with your package. If you are really in doubt, ask the developers or people on this forum. Everyone misses a dependency every now and then and if you miss some it's not the end of the world. But I see C libraries, plugins and scripts that clearly require an interpreter all being uploaded without a dependency list. If you'd like me to mention names, I could, but I'd rather see these problems get fixed!

Thank-you

.:B:. · 2011-01-11 05:52:23

Geez... Does that mean I have to fix my AUR packages?

ngoonee · 2011-01-11 06:16:54

I understand the rant, but I do not understand why this is posted here. Do you really expect those whose packages are missing depends to read this?

A better place would be [aur-general] but that wouldn't really hit the right people either.

The best way, the Arch way if I may, is to post the problem on affected packages as you see/use them. The AUR is a USER repository, maintained by users for users. It is thus a community effort, not an enterprise where general dictums are followed to the letter.

bernarcher · 2011-01-11 06:26:04

And of course let the maintainer know. Mail him or comment on the AUR.

fukawi2 · 2011-01-11 10:34:26

While I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment, I agree with the others that it's probably falling on deaf ears... If someone can't be bothered adding depends to their PKGBUILD, then they probably can't be bothered reading the forums regularly

tomk · 2011-01-11 11:04:27

Also, one more thing:

ConnorBehan wrote:

people expect a "source package" to be a "properly made source package."

An unrealistic expectation. The AUR's content is entirely unregulated, so people should not expect anything. As it happens, many contributors are keen to adhere to the available standards and guidelines, but using the AUR with an expectation like that will only get you into difficulty.

.:B:. · 2011-01-11 11:50:22

On the other hand, you litterally get warnings everywhere that source packages should be generated with makepkg --source, if I remember well.

Nichollan · 2011-01-11 12:23:00

I will take note of this if I ever decide to make an AUR package.

Arch Linux

#1 2011-01-11 05:13:38

Listing dependencies in your AUR package is NOT optional!

#2 2011-01-11 05:52:23

Re: Listing dependencies in your AUR package is NOT optional!

#3 2011-01-11 06:16:54

Re: Listing dependencies in your AUR package is NOT optional!

#4 2011-01-11 06:26:04

Re: Listing dependencies in your AUR package is NOT optional!

#5 2011-01-11 10:34:26

Re: Listing dependencies in your AUR package is NOT optional!

#6 2011-01-11 11:04:27

Re: Listing dependencies in your AUR package is NOT optional!

#7 2011-01-11 11:50:22

Re: Listing dependencies in your AUR package is NOT optional!

#8 2011-01-11 12:23:00

Re: Listing dependencies in your AUR package is NOT optional!

Board footer