Your opinions on AUR

kcy29581 · 2005-05-13 10:59:56

Hi all,

I noticed that there isn't a poll about how users feel about AUR. I for one like the idea and use it so it's obvious what I voted for...

.:edit:.

dibble added a poll option - hope it helps

pixel · 2005-05-13 11:32:28

It would be nice also to have binary packages along with PKGBUILD's in AUR.
BTW i voted yes...

iphitus · 2005-05-13 11:32:43

You're missing the 'im notall too sure yet, i want to see how it pans out' option

kcy29581 · 2005-05-13 11:36:52

iphitus, good suggestion. how on earth do you edit the blasted poll?

Moo-Crumpus · 2005-05-13 12:00:27

I don't feel very comfortable using the AUR. Pacman fetches only parts of it.

kcy29581 · 2005-05-13 12:04:49

Pink Chick wrote:

I don't feel very comfortable using the AUR. Pacman fetches only parts of it.

What do you mean? Isn't it just another type of repo?

sweiss · 2005-05-13 12:53:19

I may be missing out something here, but I can't find an easier way to search for packages in 'unsupported' rather than through the website. Being able to access it through the command line would be nice.

Moo-Crumpus · 2005-05-13 14:51:08

kcy29581 wrote:

Pink Chick wrote:
I don't feel very comfortable using the AUR. Pacman fetches only parts of it.
What do you mean? Isn't it just another type of repo?

f.e. at the web page, I can see there is hardware-monitor, in an "unsupported" mode. Try to get it:

$ sudo pacman -Sy hardware-monitor
:: Synchronizing package databases...
:: current is up to date
:: extra is up to date
:: community is up to date
hardware-monitor: not found in sync db

No surprise, some packages are inside a community repo (that is pacmanized), some are not. I don't like this separation of packages, where some can be fetched using pacman, while others have to be pulled down manually very much.

phrakture · 2005-05-13 15:09:05

ok, because no one seems to understand, I'll throw out a big ol' description:
the AUR and community repo are linked, but not the same. The AUR is a place for PKGBUILDs, allowing users to vote on them. The community repo is a place for PKGBUILDs from the AUR that have gotten enough votes.
This is for a number of reasons:
a) It's impossible to validate and verify all the PKGBUILDs submitted to AUR. It'd be very easy for someone to make a PKGBUILD which runs "mke2fs /dev/hda1" in an install file.
b) Sometimes there are PKGBUILDs which no one cares about. In these cases, it's a waste of disk space and maintainer time to create a package.

Those who used to be TURs are now AUR maintainers.

So, for all you people who don't use the AUR - if you want a package, and it's in the AUR, please vote for it. That way, it will eventually end up in the community repo.

As for syncing the AUR with abs, that's been debated quite alot. I feel it's worthwhile (at least for me), however, alot of people feel it's insecure (see "a" above), and will mislead users into thinking they're secure.

Any questions about the AUR, please ask...

Moo-Crumpus · 2005-05-13 15:27:07

phrakture wrote:

So, for all you people who don't use the AUR - if you want a package, and it's in the AUR, please vote for it. That way, it will eventually end up in the community repo.

vote? how? wiki :idea:

phrakture · 2005-05-13 15:32:11

Pink Chick wrote:

phrakture wrote:
So, for all you people who don't use the AUR - if you want a package, and it's in the AUR, please vote for it. That way, it will eventually end up in the community repo.
vote? how? wiki :idea:

ummm, sign up for an account, then when you're browsing packages, check the little box and hit "vote" at the top

kcy29581 · 2005-05-13 18:51:46

Ok... phrak, I have a question then. If AUR isn't as secure as the stable and extra repos, am I to assume that it WON'T be the way forward for Arch? Because if Arch's STABLE number of packages is to grow, this cannot grow on a back of an unstable ladder. If AUR's PKGBUILDs can indeed carry a command that could wipe out a partition, then surely the way forward would be to add more packages to Arch's official repos?
The above concern is why I never trusted TUR's too much, but I thought that AUR would have some "official" backing.
Sorry if I got anything wrong...

cactus · 2005-05-13 18:59:14

I am still undecided.

ozar · 2005-05-13 19:11:09

cactus wrote:

I am still undecided.

Me, too - I'm gonna have to wait and see. :?

Gullible Jones · 2005-05-13 19:38:25

I think it's awesome. It's nice to have all the maintained PKGBUILDs in one place...

phrakture · 2005-05-13 19:39:49

kcy29581 wrote:

Ok... phrak, I have a question then. If AUR isn't as secure as the stable and extra repos, am I to assume that it WON'T be the way forward for Arch? Because if Arch's STABLE number of packages is to grow, this cannot grow on a back of an unstable ladder. If AUR's PKGBUILDs can indeed carry a command that could wipe out a partition, then surely the way forward would be to add more packages to Arch's official repos?
The above concern is why I never trusted TUR's too much, but I thought that AUR would have some "official" backing.
Sorry if I got anything wrong...

well here's the progression:
* PKGBUILD goes into AUR
* people like it and vote for it
* it hits a certain number of votes (25?) and is packaged in the community repo
* after a time and given enough demand + continued voting, it will move to unstable, then extra (?)

what the AUR is doing is exactly what you suggested: increasing stable packages through forced usage and testing - it's not just increasing the sheer volume of packages by taking every PKGBUIL under the sun and popping it in extra

now technically the move to extra isn't that big of a deal, as the community repo is an official repo now - but the main point is that it allows the community to provide packages which have been proven to be stable...

Meshuggin · 2005-05-13 20:52:57

It's great ... like other people said, it would be nice can get the binary packages too, but for now it's ok

leeghoofd · 2005-05-13 22:06:58

I have a few questions about the AUR bevore I cast my vote

Will the PKGBUILDS that are currently in extra and current also be added to the AUR?
If I add a comment to the AUR will the maintainer of that package get a mail or some other notification?
Do I understand correcly that only the original poster of a PKGBUILD can edit it or add new versions?
Why isn't it like a wiki so that everybody can edit and improve the PKGBUILDS? Of course if a PKGBUILD is added to community the TU who did that should first check the improved PKGBUILD bevore submitting the new one to community. And also like in a wiki a TU or the original poster of the PKGBUILD should have the possability of undo-ing this.
How does different versions work, is it possible to have multiple version of one package in the AUR at the same time?

Cheers,
David

phrakture · 2005-05-13 22:15:31

leeghoofd wrote:

Will the PKGBUILDS that are currently in extra and current also be added to the AUR?

no, those are in ABS

leeghoofd wrote:

If I add a comment to the AUR will the maintainer of that package get a mail or some other notification?

No, at least not right now - but it's a good idea... you can add feature requests in the bug tracker (bugs.archlinux.org) - make sure to switch the "project" from Arch to AUR

leeghoofd wrote:

Do I understand correcly that only the original poster of a PKGBUILD can edit it or add new versions?

Well, the maintainer of it can. However, if I made a vim package you weren't happy with, you can always add "vim-leeghoofd" or something.

leeghoofd wrote:

Why isn't it like a wiki so that everybody can edit and improve the PKGBUILDS?

Because that has so many security holes I can't even count...

leeghoofd wrote:

How does different versions work, is it possible to have multiple version of one package in the AUR at the same time?

Not unless the names are different (ala php and php4). It works just like the rest of ArchLinux... only one version at a time.

kcy29581 · 2005-05-13 22:24:52

Thanks phrak, but I fail to see at what stage a PKGBUILD is deemed stable? Is it stable after people test in in community, and then when it is deemed stable (by whom, and how?) it is moved to extra?
Sorry, it's just that I can see the step from getting the required number of votes, but not the stable part

phrakture · 2005-05-13 22:30:33

kcy29581 wrote:

Sorry, it's just that I can see the step from getting the required number of votes, but not the stable part

ummm... are you going to vote for a package that doesn't work? I know I won't

kcy29581 · 2005-05-13 23:12:31

Good point phrak! We're taking the voting differently. I took voting as if you WANTED the package to get into community, not whether it works or not. (I thought you could only use the PKGBUILD unless it was in community? how can you test it if its in unsupported or anything else?)

phrakture · 2005-05-13 23:16:44

kcy29581 wrote:

Good point phrak! We're taking the voting differently. I took voting as if you WANTED the package to get into community, not whether it works or not. (I thought you could only use the PKGBUILD unless it was in community? how can you test it if its in unsupported or anything else?)

Well, when you click on the package there's a link that says "tarball" - download that... it's a tar'd up directory containing everything you need to run makepkg on it.

The reason this isn't linked with abs is for security reasons....

So you have to manually download the tarball and run makepkg after untarring (this adds another part of testing... testing the build... please everyone, check the PKGBUILD and .install files before running - you never know who posted a malicious PKGBUILD in the AUR)

kcy29581 · 2005-05-13 23:27:41

Thanks for clarifying that phrak. Thats a good way of testing then! I never noticed the link to the PKGBUILD you mentioned, purely because I'm on links/lynx most of the time here...
Thanks again, sorry if I bored ya!

bosewicht · 2005-05-14 00:00:24

I am undecided too, it might be a little early in the game to make a decision. I guess we'll have to see how well it works.

Arch Linux

#1 2005-05-13 10:59:56

Your opinions on AUR

#2 2005-05-13 11:32:28

Re: Your opinions on AUR

#3 2005-05-13 11:32:43

Re: Your opinions on AUR

#4 2005-05-13 11:36:52

Re: Your opinions on AUR

#5 2005-05-13 12:00:27

Re: Your opinions on AUR

#6 2005-05-13 12:04:49

Re: Your opinions on AUR

#7 2005-05-13 12:53:19

Re: Your opinions on AUR

#8 2005-05-13 14:51:08

Re: Your opinions on AUR

#9 2005-05-13 15:09:05

Re: Your opinions on AUR

#10 2005-05-13 15:27:07

Re: Your opinions on AUR

#11 2005-05-13 15:32:11

Re: Your opinions on AUR

#12 2005-05-13 18:51:46

Re: Your opinions on AUR

#13 2005-05-13 18:59:14

Re: Your opinions on AUR

#14 2005-05-13 19:11:09

Re: Your opinions on AUR

#15 2005-05-13 19:38:25

Re: Your opinions on AUR

#16 2005-05-13 19:39:49

Re: Your opinions on AUR

#17 2005-05-13 20:52:57

Re: Your opinions on AUR

#18 2005-05-13 22:06:58

Re: Your opinions on AUR

#19 2005-05-13 22:15:31

Re: Your opinions on AUR

#20 2005-05-13 22:24:52

Re: Your opinions on AUR

#21 2005-05-13 22:30:33

Re: Your opinions on AUR

#22 2005-05-13 23:12:31

Re: Your opinions on AUR

#23 2005-05-13 23:16:44

Re: Your opinions on AUR

#24 2005-05-13 23:27:41

Re: Your opinions on AUR

#25 2005-05-14 00:00:24

Re: Your opinions on AUR

Board footer