[Solved] when can we expect pacman-5.0 ?

michis · 2016-01-16 21:29:36

Hi,

I read about the (long awaited ) pacman hooks and that they will be available in pacman-5.0.
In the pacman-dev mailing-list archive (dec. 2015) I saw a thread with subject 'pacman 5 freeze' or something similar.
Don't remember exactly.

So, when can we expect pacman-5.0 in the repos?

Last edited by michis (2016-01-30 12:54:25)

Head_on_a_Stick · 2016-01-16 21:31:33

When it's ready!

EDIT: I think you can install it from git now if you want.

Last edited by Head_on_a_Stick (2016-01-16 21:32:07)

WorMzy · 2016-01-16 21:52:14

The freeze topic you mentioned is here: https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/p … 20629.html

As noted, the strings were submitted to Transifex, so I suspect once translations are done, 5.0 will be tagged.

michis · 2016-01-16 22:00:31

Ah ok, so it seems it will be in the not too far future.
Thanks for the info.

Allan · 2016-01-16 23:23:41

All it requires is me to finalize a few things... I have been very busy at work so this is taking longer than I hoped.

clfarron4 · 2016-01-16 23:59:16

Do I see HOOKS?

michis · 2016-01-17 09:11:52

Allan wrote:

All it requires is me to finalize a few things...

Nice
Thanks for the info Allan.

Radioactiveman · 2016-01-17 11:26:24

From the Transifex announcement:

Allan wrote:

Final strings for pacman-5.0
Hi all, Thanks for all the translating in the lead up to pacman-5.0. The translations look in good shape!
I have just pushed the final update which brings 7 new strings. I intend to make the release at the end of January, so that gives two weeks.
Thanks, Allan

nstgc · 2016-01-17 15:24:07

clfarron4 wrote:

Do I see HOOKS?

My reaction exactly. I have no real clue what the hook would be for, but it kind of makes me excited.

clfarron4 · 2016-01-17 15:37:21

nstgc wrote:

clfarron4 wrote:
Do I see HOOKS?
My reaction exactly. I have no real clue what the hook would be for, but it kind of makes me excited.

I think the vision for HOOKS is to deal with nice stuff such as post-install module building etc (in the way Vi0l0's catalyst-hook package deals with fglrx module building. But imagine it just happening instead of having to mess around with a service).

Head_on_a_Stick · 2016-01-17 17:46:52

I've been using kernel postinstall hooks in Debian for a while and it is very useful.

I feel like a kid at $SEASONAL_HOLIDAY waiting for this

WorMzy · 2016-01-17 17:54:35

So long as there's a hook that prints out "Arch is the best" after each individual package upgrade, I'll be happy.

michis · 2016-01-17 18:01:03

Head_on_a_Stick wrote:

I feel like a kid at $SEASONAL_HOLIDAY waiting for this

As I mentioned in the first post:
long awaited

eschwartz · 2016-01-18 06:35:24

clfarron4 wrote:

nstgc wrote:
clfarron4 wrote:
Do I see HOOKS?
My reaction exactly. I have no real clue what the hook would be for, but it kind of makes me excited.
I think the vision for HOOKS is to deal with nice stuff such as post-install module building etc (in the way Vi0l0's catalyst-hook package deals with fglrx module building. But imagine it just happening instead of having to mess around with a service).

Also I believe things like updating the mime database and gtk icon cache will now be able to run once after a full pacman transaction, rather than after each and every package.
(And most post-install scripts seem to be just this -- so now most packages will be able to get away without including install scripts.)

It should also be possible to automatically compile python bytecode, rather than depending on maintainers to necessarily take care of it (could be extended by maintainers packaging modules outside /usr/lib/python*/)... as well as decreasing the size of packages which no longer have to track pyc/pyo files.

In fact, I think that is two of the major things which debian delegates to dpkg hooks??

Allan · 2016-01-18 07:30:12

Creating the info page directory can also be added to that list. I expect 90% of install files to disappear.

sl1pkn07 · 2016-01-18 08:16:53

That hook is only used in update/install packages? Or can use in prepare(), build() and package() functions

Allan · 2016-01-18 08:25:31

If I understand what you are asking - look at makepkg-template.

sl1pkn07 · 2016-01-18 08:37:22

for example avoid (or call a function without write that function in the pkgbuild) things like:

prepare() {
 some brawbraw

  find . -name '*.py' -exec sed -i -r 's|/usr/bin/python$|&2|g' {} +
  mkdir "$srcdir/python2-path"
  ln -s /usr/bin/python2 "$srcdir/python2-path/python"

 some brawbraw
}

build() {
  some brawbraw

  export PATH="$srcdir/python2-path:$PATH"

  some brawbraw
}

create_links() {
    # create soname links
    for _lib in $(find "${pkgdir}" -name '*.so*' | grep -v 'xorg/'); do
        _soname=$(dirname "${_lib}")/$(readelf -d "${_lib}" | grep -Po 'SONAME.*: \[\K[^]]*' || true)
        _base=$(echo ${_soname} | sed -r 's/(.*).so.*/\1.so/')
        [[ -e "${_soname}" ]] || ln -s $(basename "${_lib}") "${_soname}"
        [[ -e "${_base}" ]] || ln -s $(basename "${_soname}") "${_base}"
    done
}

package() {
  some brawbraw

  create_links

  some brawbraw
}

prepare() {
 some brawbraw

  # Damm DOS
  find -type f -exec perl -pi -e 's/\r\n?/\n/g' "{}" \;
}

or something using a hooks

like a eclass used in ebuild in gentoo

Last edited by sl1pkn07 (2016-01-18 08:48:46)

Allan · 2016-01-18 08:45:57

makepkg-template - not that anyone used it...

sl1pkn07 · 2016-01-18 09:20:29

mmmm no, is not valid for like i mean

the templetes add in the pkgbuild the things i want avoid in the pkgbuild. i mean like a plugin of makepkg. call that pluging when invokes in the pkgbuild

for example:

pkgname=
pkgver=
pkgrel=
pkgdesc="simple configuration file class"
arch=()
license=()
depends=()
source=()
md5sums=()

url=""
options+=()
HOOKS=('python2' 'soname_links' 'dos2unix')


prepare()
        cd "$srcdir/$_distdir"
        use_python2
        dos_to_unix
}

build() {
        cd "$srcdir/$_distdir"
        set_python2
        make
}

check() {
        cd "$srcdir/$_distdir"
        make test
}

package() {
        cd "$srcdir/$_distdir"
        make DESTDIR="$pkgdir" install
        install -Dm755 lib.so.${pkgver}
        make_soname_links
}

python2.hook

use_python2() {
  find . -name '*.py' -exec sed -i -r 's|/usr/bin/python$|&2|g' {} +
  mkdir "$srcdir/python2-path"
  ln -s /usr/bin/python2 "$srcdir/python2-path/python"
}

set_python2() {
    export PATH="$srcdir/python2-path:$PATH"
}

soname_links.hook

make_soname_links() {
    for _lib in $(find "${pkgdir}" -name '*.so*); do
        _soname=$(dirname "${_lib}")/$(readelf -d "${_lib}" | grep -Po 'SONAME.*: \[\K[^]]*' || true)
        _base=$(echo ${_soname} | sed -r 's/(.*).so.*/\1.so/')
        [[ -e "${_soname}" ]] || ln -s $(basename "${_lib}") "${_soname}"
        [[ -e "${_base}" ]] || ln -s $(basename "${_soname}") "${_base}"
    done
}

dos2unix.hook

dos_to_unix() {
  find -type f -exec perl -pi -e 's/\r\n?/\n/g' "{}" \;
}

Last edited by sl1pkn07 (2016-01-18 09:24:35)

Stebalien · 2016-01-18 14:35:21

Eschwartz wrote:

It should also be possible to automatically compile python bytecode, rather than depending on maintainers to necessarily take care of it (could be extended by maintainers packaging modules outside /usr/lib/python*/)... as well as decreasing the size of packages which no longer have to track pyc/pyo files.

I hope not. Preferably, everything in /usr (except /usr/local) should be tracked by the package manager. It just makes things simpler. Hooks are useful for things that can't be done at compile time (i.e. things that depend on the state of the machine on which the package is being installed).

graysky · 2016-01-18 14:46:54

Exciting! But I need to wait for the docs and for some examples to fully appreachiate.

Lone_Wolf · 2016-01-18 14:47:56

makepkg-template, makepkg, pkgbuild docs in git don't mention hooks.

alpm-hooks.5.txt does.

If i understand correctly, this will work a bit like udev rules ?
pacman will install some hooks by default,and we can make our own hooks if desired ?

a few (hypothetical) examples :

package has dkms in name, run dkms-install
files ending in .ttf, post-transaction : run update fontconfig
packagename has linux in it, reboot system
package has files ending in .info : run "delete info-files"
package has files ending in exe or docx or xlsx : abort installation

Last edited by Lone_Wolf (2016-01-18 14:48:38)

apg · 2016-01-18 14:58:57

Examples: https://github.com/andrewgregory/pachooks/tree/working

ukhippo · 2016-01-18 15:00:27

Lone_Wolf wrote:

a few (hypothetical) examples :
packagename has linux in it, reboot system

Saying I need to reboot would be fine, but not auto-rebooting. I'd like the opportunity to at least handle any .pacnew files first!

Arch Linux

#1 2016-01-16 21:29:36

[Solved] when can we expect pacman-5.0 ?

#2 2016-01-16 21:31:33

Re: [Solved] when can we expect pacman-5.0 ?

#3 2016-01-16 21:52:14

Re: [Solved] when can we expect pacman-5.0 ?

#4 2016-01-16 22:00:31

Re: [Solved] when can we expect pacman-5.0 ?

#5 2016-01-16 23:23:41

Re: [Solved] when can we expect pacman-5.0 ?

#6 2016-01-16 23:59:16

Re: [Solved] when can we expect pacman-5.0 ?

#7 2016-01-17 09:11:52

Re: [Solved] when can we expect pacman-5.0 ?

#8 2016-01-17 11:26:24

Re: [Solved] when can we expect pacman-5.0 ?

#9 2016-01-17 15:24:07

Re: [Solved] when can we expect pacman-5.0 ?

#10 2016-01-17 15:37:21

Re: [Solved] when can we expect pacman-5.0 ?

#11 2016-01-17 17:46:52

Re: [Solved] when can we expect pacman-5.0 ?

#12 2016-01-17 17:54:35

Re: [Solved] when can we expect pacman-5.0 ?

#13 2016-01-17 18:01:03

Re: [Solved] when can we expect pacman-5.0 ?

#14 2016-01-18 06:35:24

Re: [Solved] when can we expect pacman-5.0 ?

#15 2016-01-18 07:30:12

Re: [Solved] when can we expect pacman-5.0 ?

#16 2016-01-18 08:16:53

Re: [Solved] when can we expect pacman-5.0 ?

#17 2016-01-18 08:25:31

Re: [Solved] when can we expect pacman-5.0 ?

#18 2016-01-18 08:37:22

Re: [Solved] when can we expect pacman-5.0 ?

#19 2016-01-18 08:45:57

Re: [Solved] when can we expect pacman-5.0 ?

#20 2016-01-18 09:20:29

Re: [Solved] when can we expect pacman-5.0 ?

#21 2016-01-18 14:35:21

Re: [Solved] when can we expect pacman-5.0 ?

#22 2016-01-18 14:46:54

Re: [Solved] when can we expect pacman-5.0 ?

#23 2016-01-18 14:47:56

Re: [Solved] when can we expect pacman-5.0 ?

#24 2016-01-18 14:58:57

Re: [Solved] when can we expect pacman-5.0 ?

#25 2016-01-18 15:00:27

Re: [Solved] when can we expect pacman-5.0 ?

Board footer