[Solved] Why I Can Move to Arch

shoober420 · 2014-07-23 09:25:00

I'm really trying to move to Arch. I'm on Debian Sid currently. I want the latest and greatest packages, and a minimal, lightweight distro. So Arch seems like a dream for what I want. But, theres a few things holding me back. One, is the mesa-git packages that aren't as recent as Xorg Edgers. I'm currently using the Xorg Edgers PPA on my Debian Sid system, to get the latest and greatest libgl packages. The mesa-git package on here is almost a month old (6/29) compared to the mesa-git release on Xorg Edgers (7/21). The most important thing to me, is the latest and greatest OpenGL packages, since I do alot of gaming. So this is holding me back right now.

Also, the AUR doesn't include the snapshot builds of evilwm, or simple terminal. I use evilwm as my window manager and simple terminal as my terminal emulator. They are both minimal, and the most lightweight window manager and terminal emulator I could find. The official and AUR repositories don't even have simple terminal. This is also holding me back. I could build simple terminal myself, but I don't know how to get the snapshot builds of evilwm without using the PPA for it. So I'm kind of in a rut right now. Any suggestions?

Last edited by shoober420 (2014-07-31 16:54:25)

brebs · 2014-07-23 09:30:37

Learn the package manager, how to compile progs yourself, how to use git. Then there will be nothing "holding you back"

shoober420 · 2014-07-23 09:35:16

Compiling the snapshot builds of evilwm and simple terminal is doable, but having to compile the mesa git will be a pain. If I do that, I might as well make a AUR page and update it weekly, to help out everyone. I'm really debating on doing this. I would also make a AUR page for evilwm and simple terminal while I'm at it.

Last edited by shoober420 (2014-07-23 09:36:05)

basica · 2014-07-23 09:37:04

Arch doesn't have as many people behind it as debian so you're not going to have as many packages available. I really don't like to use the AUR, but my hand is forced since some packages that I need to use are not available off the shelf. So yeah, I can understand your frustration. That said, if you're not willing to adapt (i.e. if it's not in the repos or the AUR you'll compile and install the apps yourself) then you need to stick with a bigger distro like debian or ubuntu. Install a minimal base and then install only the apps you need.

Runiq · 2014-07-23 09:39:27

The mesa-git package on here is almost a month old

Packages that install from VCSs by default install the latest revision. The 'version' you see is simplythe last time the PKGBUILD itself was changed.

Also, the AUR doesn't include the snapshot builds of evilwm […]I don't know how to get the snapshot builds of evilwm without using the PPA for it.

EvilWM repo: http://www.6809.org.uk/repos/evilwm.git

Edit: Ninja'd by JW on the st-git package. Damn you, JW!

Last edited by Runiq (2014-07-23 09:42:32)

jasonwryan · 2014-07-23 09:41:46

shoober420 wrote:

Also, the AUR doesn't include the snapshot builds of evilwm, or simple terminal.

https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/st-git/

Not an Arch discussion, moving to NC...

karol · 2014-07-23 09:49:57

There's also https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/st/

Edit: read the wiki article on unofficial repositories. [mesa-git] unofficial repo provides (daily builds of?) mesa-git.

Last edited by karol (2014-07-23 09:52:24)

shoober420 · 2014-07-23 09:53:09

Runiq wrote:

Packages that install from VCSs by default install the latest revision. The 'version' you see is simplythe last time the PKGBUILD itself was changed.

So, you're saying that the mesa-git packages are actually as recent as Xorg Edgers? How can I tell what date the files were built?

jasonwryan wrote:

https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/st-git/

That package was built at the end of 2013. I'm using version 0.5 which was release April of this year.

karol wrote:

There's also https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/st/

Nice! I was looking for this. Well, I don't need to worry about simple terminal now. I just need to make an AUR page for evilwm snapshots.

Last edited by shoober420 (2014-07-23 09:55:31)

karol · 2014-07-23 09:57:58

shoober420, please read up on VCS packages, read the PKGBUILD etc.
What makes you think there's a package in the AUR at all and why do you think st-git was built at the end of 2013?

jasonwryan · 2014-07-23 09:58:09

shoober420 wrote:

jasonwryan wrote:
https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/st-git/
That package was built at the end of 2013. I'm using version 0.5 which was release April of this year.

It's a -git package: building it will pull HEAD. Please read the wiki article on AUR and familiarise yourself with how Arch works.

shoober420 · 2014-07-23 10:11:15

karol wrote:

What makes you think there's a package in the AUR at all and why do you think st-git was built at the end of 2013?

The st-git AUR page labels the package as "st-git 1:20130907.210dda9-1". So I thought it was from 2013. It also says it was last updated on "2013-09-29 03:05".

jasonwryan wrote:

It's a -git package: building it will pull HEAD. Please read the wiki article on AUR and familiarise yourself with how Arch works.

Okay, I just scrimmed threw the AUR page, and I think I understand how it works. When I download a -git package, and I run pacman -Syu, or pacaur, it will go out to the git page of the package and update it accordingly? This would also mean I need the actual git package right?

Last edited by shoober420 (2014-07-23 10:12:00)

karol · 2014-07-23 10:15:25

shoober420 wrote:

karol wrote:
What makes you think there's a package in the AUR at all and why do you think st-git was built at the end of 2013?
The st-git AUR page labels the package as "st-git 1:20130907.210dda9-1". So I thought it was from 2013. It also says it was last updated on "2013-09-29 03:05".

There's no binary package in the AUR, it's just a PKGBUILD - and that PKGBUILD has been updated on 2013-09-29.

jasonwryan wrote:
It's a -git package: building it will pull HEAD. Please read the wiki article on AUR and familiarise yourself with how Arch works.
Okay, I just scrimmed threw the AUR page, and I think I understand how it works. When I download a -git package, and I run pacman -Syu, or pacaur, it will go out to the git page of the package and update it accordingly? This would also mean I need the actual git package right?

No, pacman updates prebuilt packages from official and unofficial repos. Stuff from the AUR is built with makepkg.
Yes, git should be a makedependency for -git packages.

shoober420 · 2014-07-23 10:23:15

karol wrote:

There's no binary package in the AUR, it's just a PKGBUILD - and that PKGBUILD has been updated on 2013-09-29.

Ohhh, my bad. I got the official and AUR mixed up.

karol wrote:

No, pacman updates prebuilt packages from official and unofficial repos. Stuff from the AUR is built with makepkg.

Let me see if I got this figured out. If I build a package from AUR, and its a -git package, it will pull the latest sources from the actually git page, and compile it. Then, when I run pacaur, or cower, it will back out to the git and grab the newer source files and compile a newer version of the -git package?

Last edited by shoober420 (2014-07-23 10:23:57)

Runiq · 2014-07-23 10:23:47

shoober420 wrote:

Let me see if I got this figured out. If I build a package from AUR, and its a -git package, it will pull the latest sources from the actually git page, and compile it. Then, when I run pacaur, or cower, it will back out to the git and grab the newer source files and compile a newer version of the -git package?

You got it.

Edit: Cower doesn't build, though, it just downloads (and searches).

Last edited by Runiq (2014-07-23 10:24:39)

shoober420 · 2014-07-23 10:25:27

Thats fricking genius. It can't get any more awesome then that. I'm going to move to Arch ASAP. It seriously can't get any better then that.

karol · 2014-07-23 10:28:46

It will download from the location specified in the PKGBUILD, usually the latest code, but it may be a legacy branch too. PKGBUILD files are fairly easy to read and you should inspect them before using them to build a package.

You can tell makepkg not to get any new code, there's a switch for that.
It's useful if you e.g. changed some config.h file and you don't want makepkg to download a fresh one and overwrite your changes, just build the code that's already in /src with your config.

shoober420 · 2014-07-23 10:31:46

Wow, thats seriously the best it can be. I would of never thought it was possible to do it like that. I do know the git package needs openssh-client. I don't have a trace of SSH on my machine, for security reasons. Is there a security risk having openssh-client on my machine?

karol · 2014-07-23 10:41:14

I think you mean openssl, not openssh:

$ expac "Dependencies for %n: %D" git
Dependencies for git: curl  expat>=2.0  perl-error  perl>=5.14.0  openssl  pcr

shoober420 · 2014-07-23 10:48:54

That is so weird. On Debian, one of the dependencies is openssh-client. But, on Arch, its openssl instead. I wonder why on Debian it wants to install openssh-client. I got to ditch Debian ASAP, its dependencies are so ridiculous.

Last edited by shoober420 (2014-07-23 10:49:09)

Trilby · 2014-07-23 10:55:32

Also with PKGBUILDs it is generally pretty easy to change many of the dependencies. See this thread for a recent example. If you really want to avoid a certain dependency, all it generally takes is removing a configure flag, then removing the package from the dependency list.

drcouzelis · 2014-07-23 12:25:00

Remember the rule: Arch Linux always has either the same software versions or more current software than any other Linux distribution, even if it seems otherwise.

Proof!

Remember back when the Steam client beta was released exclusively for Ubuntu? There was a package for Arch Linux made the same day.

nomorewindows · 2014-07-23 12:54:37

Looks like we've another Arch user!

qinohe · 2014-07-23 13:12:49

The way you can make Arch to your likings is simply unprecedented, compared to other distro's && OS'ses... alright, BSD's are okay too
@OP, you should definitely check out ABS, you can almost literally do what you like here, with pacman support.

karol · 2014-07-23 13:13:31

Gentoo and Crux are 'what you make of it' distros too.

qinohe · 2014-07-23 13:15:21

@karol, true but they are not as KISS as Arch is.

Arch Linux

#1 2014-07-23 09:25:00

[Solved] Why I Can Move to Arch

#2 2014-07-23 09:30:37

Re: [Solved] Why I Can Move to Arch

#3 2014-07-23 09:35:16

Re: [Solved] Why I Can Move to Arch

#4 2014-07-23 09:37:04

Re: [Solved] Why I Can Move to Arch

#5 2014-07-23 09:39:27

Re: [Solved] Why I Can Move to Arch

#6 2014-07-23 09:41:46

Re: [Solved] Why I Can Move to Arch

#7 2014-07-23 09:49:57

Re: [Solved] Why I Can Move to Arch

#8 2014-07-23 09:53:09

Re: [Solved] Why I Can Move to Arch

#9 2014-07-23 09:57:58

Re: [Solved] Why I Can Move to Arch

#10 2014-07-23 09:58:09

Re: [Solved] Why I Can Move to Arch

#11 2014-07-23 10:11:15

Re: [Solved] Why I Can Move to Arch

#12 2014-07-23 10:15:25

Re: [Solved] Why I Can Move to Arch

#13 2014-07-23 10:23:15

Re: [Solved] Why I Can Move to Arch

#14 2014-07-23 10:23:47

Re: [Solved] Why I Can Move to Arch

#15 2014-07-23 10:25:27

Re: [Solved] Why I Can Move to Arch

#16 2014-07-23 10:28:46

Re: [Solved] Why I Can Move to Arch

#17 2014-07-23 10:31:46

Re: [Solved] Why I Can Move to Arch

#18 2014-07-23 10:41:14

Re: [Solved] Why I Can Move to Arch

#19 2014-07-23 10:48:54

Re: [Solved] Why I Can Move to Arch

#20 2014-07-23 10:55:32

Re: [Solved] Why I Can Move to Arch

#21 2014-07-23 12:25:00

Re: [Solved] Why I Can Move to Arch

#22 2014-07-23 12:54:37

Re: [Solved] Why I Can Move to Arch

#23 2014-07-23 13:12:49

Re: [Solved] Why I Can Move to Arch

#24 2014-07-23 13:13:31

Re: [Solved] Why I Can Move to Arch

#25 2014-07-23 13:15:21

Re: [Solved] Why I Can Move to Arch

Board footer