You are not logged in.

#1 2013-10-01 09:59:08

XenGi
Member
From: berlin, germany, europe, earth
Registered: 2013-02-23
Posts: 23
Website

Duplicate packages for BitTorrent Sync in AUR

There are two packages for Bittorrent Sync in the AUR. bittorrent-sync and btsync. In the wiki page the bittorrent-sync package is used and it seems more used overall. So can we just drop the other one to reduce confusion? Or maybe we could merge them so that we get one package that is better then both.

Last edited by XenGi (2013-10-01 10:04:52)


# got root?█

Offline

#2 2013-10-01 10:07:23

XURL
Member
Registered: 2013-09-26
Posts: 24

Re: Duplicate packages for BitTorrent Sync in AUR

Those packages have different versions (1.1.70-2 and 1.1.82-1).

Last edited by XURL (2013-10-01 10:13:03)


☑ CPU: Single core Intel Pentium M (-UP-) clocked at 1733.000 Mhz
☑ MEM: 490.1 MB
☑ HDD: 40.1 GB

Offline

#3 2013-10-01 10:07:54

Trilby
Forum Moderator
From: Massachusetts, USA
Registered: 2011-11-29
Posts: 13,502
Website

Re: Duplicate packages for BitTorrent Sync in AUR

The latter one is new, and has a comment that clarifies it's purpose: they are not identical packages.  The first may well just be more used as it has been around a lot longer, the second is brand new so it couldn't have accumulated votes or be integrated into the wiki.

Whether the streamlining done is worthy of a distinct package can certainly be discussed, but such things are not at all uncommon in the AUR.   Just look at how many firefox AUR packages there are (162 including the name firefox, probably about half are just different compile-time options or configurations of firefox).

(edit: fixed # for firefox; I originally `wc`'ed the cower output including description lines)

Last edited by Trilby (2013-10-01 10:19:17)


InterrobangSlider
• How's my coding? See this page.
• How's my moderating? Feel free to email any concerns, complaints, or objections.

Offline

#4 2013-10-01 10:14:47

fukawi2
Forum Moderator
From: .vic.au
Registered: 2007-09-28
Posts: 5,267
Website

Re: Duplicate packages for BitTorrent Sync in AUR

And the proper place for this discussion is the AUR Mailing List...
https://mailman.archlinux.org/mailman/l … ur-general


FWIW though, I use the 'bittorrent-sync' package and it works well.

Offline

#5 2013-10-01 10:31:47

XenGi
Member
From: berlin, germany, europe, earth
Registered: 2013-02-23
Posts: 23
Website

Re: Duplicate packages for BitTorrent Sync in AUR

I still don't see the need for 2 packages. They are the same except for the version. If they get updated they even have the same version.
I could understand a case like firefox where you have really different packages but in this case it's just confusing. It's the same problem with ut1999 and unrealtournament. Same package, no difference.

If the situation is ok for you guys, I can't do something. My hope was that the maintainers merge there packages to one.

Btw the btsync package doesn't do what it says. It just graps the latest version and calls it 1.1.82. There isn't even a version with that number. The latest official version is 1.1.70. So I think the btsync isn't just a duplicate it has also some errors.

Last edited by XenGi (2013-10-01 10:40:31)


# got root?█

Offline

#6 2013-10-01 12:29:08

fukawi2
Forum Moderator
From: .vic.au
Registered: 2007-09-28
Posts: 5,267
Website

Re: Duplicate packages for BitTorrent Sync in AUR

XenGi wrote:

If the situation is ok for you guys, I can't do something. My hope was that the maintainers merge there packages to one.

Send an email to the aur-general list and see what those who manage the AUR think.

XenGi wrote:

Btw the btsync package doesn't do what it says. It just graps the latest version and calls it 1.1.82. There isn't even a version with that number. The latest official version is 1.1.70. So I think the btsync isn't just a duplicate it has also some errors.

1.1.82 was released briefly but it was retracted by the devs.

Offline

#7 2013-10-02 01:25:23

ava1ar
Member
From: NYC
Registered: 2009-10-20
Posts: 23

Re: Duplicate packages for BitTorrent Sync in AUR

Hi,

I am the maintainer of btsync. Let's me describe why I added alternative package to AUR.

Initially, just after btsync release, we have 2 packages, because they were uploaded and maintained separately, without knowing of each other. After this duplication was discovered, we agreed to merge both packages into one - I removed my package (btsync) and moved to bittorrent-sync. Some time later, during update I discovered, that bittorrent-sync script has tons of helper scripts and wrappers, the only need of which is just to generate initial config (in my package, I was just generating default system-wide config and provided detailed steps of creating user-specific config). I am using Arch because I like it's KISS principles a lot, so I don't like doing something "just because" and introducing new code just to replace single-time manual action. So, I just created my own PKGBUILD which is as simple as possible, doesn't have any unneeded mess and switched to it. Afterwards, I uploaded it to AUR in case something else find it useful.

If nobody is interested in btsync package, I will remove it from AUR and will continue use it for my needs only.

Offline

#8 2013-10-02 02:58:19

XenGi
Member
From: berlin, germany, europe, earth
Registered: 2013-02-23
Posts: 23
Website

Re: Duplicate packages for BitTorrent Sync in AUR

It seems like nobody uses your package so if you ask me it can be removed.


# got root?█

Offline

#9 2013-10-02 03:13:12

fukawi2
Forum Moderator
From: .vic.au
Registered: 2007-09-28
Posts: 5,267
Website

Re: Duplicate packages for BitTorrent Sync in AUR

IMHO, it should at least be renamed to highlight that it is different from the more-used "bittorrent-sync"

Having them named so similarly is confusing.

XenGi wrote:

It seems like nobody uses your package...

Well it has 4 votes, so that's not an accurate statement.

Offline

#10 2013-10-02 03:32:34

Trilby
Forum Moderator
From: Massachusetts, USA
Registered: 2011-11-29
Posts: 13,502
Website

Re: Duplicate packages for BitTorrent Sync in AUR

XenGi, I think it is great to discuss what would be productive for the community in the AUR and what might not be.  Considering the pros and cons of multiple packages can be very useful.  And as a preface, I don't use either of these, but many of your points in this thread seem very biased against btsync and don't seem to be based on sound reasons.

Specifically, you claim nobody uses it - which one should certainly read as a very few people use it.  But of course this is true, as above, it is brand new to the AUR.  It has received 4 votes on two weeks of being in the AUR.  Compared to many other AUR packages, that makes it very popular - at very least above average.  That says to me that there is user interest in it.

Again, I have no dog in this fight, but I like to see productive discussions.  I think this could be productive if the discussion focuses on objective differences (or lack thereof) between the two packages.  Is the reduction/removal of these configuration scripts beneficial, what are the use cases for having them or not, etc. 

Claims that "nobody" uses btsync seem neither accurate, nor productive for discussion.  Four of my packages in the AUR have been around quite a bit longer than btsync, and still don't have 4 votes.  Should I remove them?  That is of course a rhetorical question.

EDIT: part of this post comes from a need to respond to the tone I percieve in "if you ask me, you can remove it."  I could very well be reading that tone wrong - I hope I am.  But it seems presumptious (did someone ask you?) and disrespectful of a community member who did something to contribute to the community.  Discussing how to contribute effectively is a plus, saying "if you ask me, your contribution isn't worth anything" ... that's what I hope I'm reading wrong.

Last edited by Trilby (2013-10-02 03:36:32)


InterrobangSlider
• How's my coding? See this page.
• How's my moderating? Feel free to email any concerns, complaints, or objections.

Offline

#11 2013-10-20 12:33:50

giowck
Member
Registered: 2011-07-13
Posts: 77

Re: Duplicate packages for BitTorrent Sync in AUR

The bittorrent-sync aur package maintainer Lorde wrote yesterday:

"Comment by Lorde
2013-10-19 09:44
This package has now been superseded by the btsync and btsync-autoconfig packages. From now on, btsync will provide BitTorrent Sync itself (the executable and systemd devides) while btsync-autoconfig will be an optional dependency that provides on-demand automatic creation of config files when btsync@.service starts."

Should we update the wiki? Or what's going on?

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB