Port Fcommands from frugalware

rohandhruva · 2006-04-04 08:56:40

Hello,

I just tried frugalware. The speed and all is the same, but one feature that shines is .. makepkg. Their makepkg has been modified to simplify the PKGBUILDs a lot. Like
cd $startdir/src becomes "Fcd"
Similarly they have Fsed, Fpatchall and so on. It really makes pkgbuilds simple and readable. Is someone interested in the porting process ? I will help the best I can. You can check out their "fwmakepkg" here...

http://darcs.frugalware.org/darcsweb/da … /fwmakepkg

Cheers,
Rohan.

Edit: Waiting for AndyRTR to vote yes

Edit2: I made a very big mistake ... For details, please see this post ..
http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?p=155429#155429

However, that does not change what i said above

Cam · 2006-04-04 09:23:01

I don't meant to sound like a shithead but if you like Frugal, why not use Frugal? I've been talking to vmiklos and crazy on IRC lately and they have a solid distro up and running, I'm impressed. Have you tried just using the fwmakepkg script in Arch? If anything you'd probably just need to remove any references it has to the archs var as it's the only once required that Arch doesn't have.

iphitus · 2006-04-04 09:37:34

Cam wrote:

I don't meant to sound like a shithead but if you like Frugal, why not use Frugal?

Maybe because he likes Arch? They do have their differences you know, and reccomending someone to change, because of some minor improvements in makepkg... is a bit ignorant.

I've been talking to vmiklos and crazy on IRC lately and they have a solid distro up and running, I'm impressed. Have you tried just using the fwmakepkg script in Arch? If anything you'd probably just need to remove any references it has to the archs var as it's the only once required that Arch doesn't have.

These would be simple to add. Although I wouldnt be surprised if you could just use the frugal equivalent of makepkg on Arch too.

tomk · 2006-04-04 10:48:11

rohandhruva wrote:

cd $startdir/src becomes "Fcd"
Similarly they have Fsed, Fpatchall and so on. It really makes pkgbuilds simple and readable.

It's funny how people can see the same thing in completely different ways. When I looked at a few of their PKGBUILDs, my immediate reaction was "why can't they just use standard commands?" IMO, it makes it less readable, because you have to know what the Fcommands do. OK, it may be fairly obvious in most cases, but it's an additional, and unnecessary, complication, AFAICS.

I voted No, in case there's any doubt.

Sander · 2006-04-04 11:04:25

I was thinking the same thing when I tried to 'convert' a FrugalBuild to a PKGBUILD (and failed, but because of other reasons ). While it's maybe less obvious what the PKGBUILDs 'mean' to someone who isn't familiar with the commands, It greatly simplifies writing them. Fpatchall for example, is pretty nifty

Also, note that Frugalware and ArchLinux have very little in common, apart from the fact that they both use pacman. so telling someone to use FW just because of this is a bit silly.

rohandhruva · 2006-04-04 11:24:55

Cam: I know I can do it for myself, and it would be very easy too. But I want to know what the community and developers think about it. And whether they would consider adding that functionality or no.

Iphitus: Yes, i like arch a lot, thats the reason why I want to see this ported.

Tomk: I respect your views, but the commands are pretty much self-explaining, eg Fpatchall

Sander: Exactly, I would not want to switch distros for such a simple matter.

Maybe we can add an option in PKGBUILDs ? Like option=('FWMAKEPKG') .. But that would an unnecessary layer of complexity.

brain0 · 2006-04-04 12:05:23

I agree with tomk here. Adding such commands would make our PKGBUILDs less transparent especially for newcomers. Arch is imo very much about transparency. Adding an unnecessary layer of abstraction would complicate it more than it improves anything.

rohandhruva wrote:

I respect your views, but the commands are pretty much self-explaining, eg Fpatchall

That's absolutely not self-explaining: Where does Fpatchall take its patches from? How does it tell if something is a patch? How and where exactly does it apply them? It's not transparent, it hides something from the user that (s)he definitely should see.

notz · 2006-04-04 12:53:34

voted +: pkgbuilds will look much cleaner and will be much safer (Frm -R /usr will not break the system)

AndyRTR · 2006-04-04 12:59:43

Coming from Mandriva you can call me a SPECman So I'm happy to have the archlinux simpleness.

I personally don't need more macros(so called in specs). What do you think about this empty Fbuild - no build body at all

AndyRTR

brain0 · 2006-04-04 13:01:37

notz wrote:

voted +: pkgbuilds will look much cleaner and will be much safer (Frm -R /usr will not break the system)

rm -R /usr won't break anything either - because you never build a package as root.

notz · 2006-04-04 13:08:49

brain0 wrote:

rm -R /usr won't break anything either - because you never build a package as root.

oh, than i'm the only one ....

Comment by: brain0 on 20060314 [18:20:16]
Sorry to say that, but that PKGBUILD is _really_ crappy.
First, all the mkdir and cp lines should be changed to use install, so that you can give them the right permissions.
And the last line is really evil: "chmod -R 744 §startdir/pkg" does not only affect this package (744 being a stupid mode, for directories AND executables AND regular files). On installing, it changes the permissions of directories like /etc or /usr/bin to 744, MAKING THE WHOLE SYSTEM UNUSABLE FOR ANY UNPRIVILEGED USER.
Do not use this PKGBUILD (version 1.0.1-2) as it is, you have been warned.

hmm, brain0 from forum = brain0 from aur ?

brain0 · 2006-04-04 13:30:20

Yes, you are right.

But: makepkg is not what broke in this case, but the installation (pacman) did. pacman changed the permissions of /usr and many other directories to the ones provided by the package (744) which does not make sense.

This is not related to package creation itself.

rohandhruva · 2006-04-04 17:06:39

Well, you put .patch files, and you dont understand what "Fpatchall" means ? Well, then pardon me for saying that the problem lies with you, brain0, not fwmakepkg. Errors which trash the system .. such as the ones in the package in aur can be avoided. Its a big +.

Also, how tedious is it to type three commands, over and over again for "standard" packages ? A default build() which ./configure --prefx=/usr ; make ; make DESTDIR=$Fdestdir ; would be just great. Arch's pkgbuild are not making things transparent, brain0, they are making it long, tedious and congested.

Well, I hope someone likes the idea and implements it. Lets see how many people want it, or otherwise, in the poll.

tomk · 2006-04-04 18:56:57

Fighting talk, rohan.

rohandhruva wrote:

the problem lies with you, brain0, not fwmakepkg.

It would appear that I have the same problem as brain0, because I don't understand what Fpatchall means either. :? OTOH, I only have to glance over a list of patches and patch commands, and I understand it instantly.

rohandhruva wrote:

Also, how tedious is it to type three commands, over and over again for "standard" packages ?

If you type those three "standard" commands over and over, then I agree that is a bit tedious. I'm lazy, so I just take one of my existing PKGBUILDs, copy it, and modify it.

rohandhruva wrote:

Lets see how many people want it, or otherwise, in the poll.

You don't have to wait, you know - you could just do it, stick it in the AUR, and see if it gets any votes. That would be the real test, not a poll.

rohandhruva · 2006-04-04 19:03:59

Ah, yes I agree I was a bit rude ..

Lets see what I can do with making a package for it, but the stock "makepkg" script would require modification for fwmakepkg addons to work .. so i dont see how uploading to aur would help.
And, the general consensus is "No" ... 1:2 for Y:N

whargoul · 2006-04-04 19:41:21

I voted no because of the same reason brain0 and tomk have.

tomk · 2006-04-04 19:43:04

If you're going to do a package, it should include all necessary modifications, so either a patch for makepkg, or a complete new version. You should make sure any modified files are backed up before anything is installed, and you should wrap the whole thing in very strong warnings about the possible consequences of modifying and/or overwriting essential system files.

Good luck!

iphitus · 2006-04-05 01:11:25

I'd prefer that it isnt put in the AUR, otherwise we will have people distributing other PKGBUILDs on the AUR written to work with this.

And that just sucks, a lot. We dont want incompatibility.

James

rohandhruva · 2006-04-05 03:08:38

Ah, Well, too bad. I was really hoping for these Fcommands to be ported.

Anyone still interested ??

brain0 · 2006-04-05 05:57:16

rohandhruva wrote:

Well, you put .patch files, and you dont understand what "Fpatchall" means ? Well, then pardon me for saying that the problem lies with you, brain0, not fwmakepkg. Errors which trash the system .. such as the ones in the package in aur can be avoided. Its a big +.

So all patches end with .patch? Maybe you want/have to apply a patch later? Maybe from another directory. Maybe with another -p option. Not even mentioning that several patches may have to be applied in a specific order.
"Fpatchall" doesn't tell you much about this stuff, it just sounds like a vague "patch something somewhere".

Also, how tedious is it to type three commands, over and over again for "standard" packages ? A default build() which ./configure --prefx=/usr ; make ; make DESTDIR=$Fdestdir ; would be just great.

Ever seen /var/abs/PKGBUILD.proto?

Arch's pkgbuild are not making things transparent, brain0, they are making it long, tedious and congested.

Yes, they are. Transparency does not have to be short, just transparent. And you think that PKGBUILDs are long and complicated, read an ebuild.

rohandhruva · 2006-04-05 06:06:58

So all patches end with .patch? Maybe you want/have to apply a patch later? Maybe from another directory. Maybe with another -p option. Not even mentioning that several patches may have to be applied in a specific order.
"Fpatchall" doesn't tell you much about this stuff, it just sounds like a vague "patch something somewhere".

Yes, it is assumed all files end with .patch. If not use "Fpatch file-foo". If you want another -p, name the file as "foo.patchP" where P is the numeral you want. If you want to apply it later, use Fpatch then. For a specific order, name the file as 00-foo.patch 01-bar.patch and so on.

Ever seen /var/abs/PKGBUILD.proto?

Ah, yes, I agree that point of mine was wrong

And you think that PKGBUILDs are long and complicated, read an ebuild.

Dont get me started on gentoo !! :twisted:

tomk · 2006-04-05 08:49:56

iphitus wrote:

I'd prefer that it isnt put in the AUR, otherwise we will have people distributing other PKGBUILDs on the AUR written to work with this.

Agreed. That was not a good suggestion - my apologies.

However, rohan, there is still nothing stopping you from trying it out yourself, and telling us about it, in User Contributions.

rohandhruva wrote:

Yes, it is assumed all files end with .patch. If not use "Fpatch file-foo". If you want another -p, name the file as "foo.patchP" where P is the numeral you want. If you want to apply it later, use Fpatch then. For a specific order, name the file as 00-foo.patch 01-bar.patch and so on.

Thanks for that. Now that you've explained how it works, I like it even less! Can I vote No again?

Sander · 2006-04-05 09:20:59

rohandhruva wrote:

Yes, it is assumed all files end with .patch. If not use "Fpatch file-foo". If you want another -p, name the file as "foo.patchP" where P is the numeral you want. If you want to apply it later, use Fpatch then. For a specific order, name the file as 00-foo.patch 01-bar.patch and so on.

Fpatchall() {
    for i in ${source[@]}; do
        if [ -n "`echo "$i" | grep .patch[0-9]*$`" -o -n "`echo "$i" | grep .diff$`" -o -n "`echo "$i" | grep '.(patch[0-9]*|diff).(gz|bz2)$'`" ]; then
            Fpatch `strip_url "$i"`
        fi
    done
}

They don't really have to end in .patch... well, my bash skills are rather nonexistent, but from this it looks like they get to end in .diff too. Sorry for the nitpicking but in discussions like this everyone should probably get their facts right

rohandhruva · 2006-04-05 15:09:54

Lol, Sander, do you think it makes any difference. Why cant you utilize your typing skills for typing out more constructive replies ? :S

Gullible Jones · 2006-04-05 20:42:49

This may sound strange but... It seems to me like adding an unnecessary level of complexity, kind of like Gentoo's rc-update stuff. If this is implemented it should be optional, and not part of the base system.

Arch Linux

#1 2006-04-04 08:56:40

Port Fcommands from frugalware

#2 2006-04-04 09:23:01

Re: Port Fcommands from frugalware

#3 2006-04-04 09:37:34

Re: Port Fcommands from frugalware

#4 2006-04-04 10:48:11

Re: Port Fcommands from frugalware

#5 2006-04-04 11:04:25

Re: Port Fcommands from frugalware

#6 2006-04-04 11:24:55

Re: Port Fcommands from frugalware

#7 2006-04-04 12:05:23

Re: Port Fcommands from frugalware

#8 2006-04-04 12:53:34

Re: Port Fcommands from frugalware

#9 2006-04-04 12:59:43

Re: Port Fcommands from frugalware

#10 2006-04-04 13:01:37

Re: Port Fcommands from frugalware

#11 2006-04-04 13:08:49

Re: Port Fcommands from frugalware

#12 2006-04-04 13:30:20

Re: Port Fcommands from frugalware

#13 2006-04-04 17:06:39

Re: Port Fcommands from frugalware

#14 2006-04-04 18:56:57

Re: Port Fcommands from frugalware

#15 2006-04-04 19:03:59

Re: Port Fcommands from frugalware

#16 2006-04-04 19:41:21

Re: Port Fcommands from frugalware

#17 2006-04-04 19:43:04

Re: Port Fcommands from frugalware

#18 2006-04-05 01:11:25

Re: Port Fcommands from frugalware

#19 2006-04-05 03:08:38

Re: Port Fcommands from frugalware

#20 2006-04-05 05:57:16

Re: Port Fcommands from frugalware

#21 2006-04-05 06:06:58

Re: Port Fcommands from frugalware

#22 2006-04-05 08:49:56

Re: Port Fcommands from frugalware

#23 2006-04-05 09:20:59

Re: Port Fcommands from frugalware

#24 2006-04-05 15:09:54

Re: Port Fcommands from frugalware

#25 2006-04-05 20:42:49

Re: Port Fcommands from frugalware

Board footer