[SOLVED] Unify user experience on ABS and AUR

cyker · 2018-07-08 21:29:38

Currently, this is how I build packages from ABS and AUR:

ABS:
```
asp checkout pkgname
```

AUR:

git clone https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgname.git

Can we unify the user experience across these 2 systems? Since ABS is currently SVN-based, it'd be better if we migrate ABS to a git-based system under a domain such as abs.archlinux.org. This way users can use the same script to build packages from both ABS and AUR:

git clone abs:pkgname.git
git clone aur:pkgname.git

This looks much better to me. What do you think about it?

Last edited by cyker (2018-07-09 19:02:04)

eschwartz · 2018-07-08 21:44:59

migrating off of svn and onto git, is on our TODO list. Patches welcome:

https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Us … ts-rewrite
https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Us … pts-status
https://github.com/archlinux/dbscripts

progandy · 2018-07-08 21:45:55

ABS has git mirrors and asp uses those to access it.

(There were a few proposals to completely migrate from svn to git, but for that the developer tools have to be rewritten first. It seems the latest attempt is creeping along slowly or even stalled.) Edit: See the links by Eschwartz.

By the way, you can also clone packages manually.

git clone --single-branch --branch packages/linux https://git.archlinux.org/svntogit/packages.git linux-pkg

Last edited by progandy (2018-07-08 21:47:45)

Trilby · 2018-07-08 22:58:14

asp also resolves basenames for split packages. A plain git clone could never do this.

eschwartz · 2018-07-08 23:30:15

Trilby wrote:

asp also resolves basenames for split packages. A plain git clone could never do this.

expac can...

Also, https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/p … 22685.html so we should have expac as part of the pacman core for the next release.

cyker · 2018-07-08 23:30:22

Trilby wrote:

asp also resolves basenames for split packages. A plain git clone could never do this.

If you need to deal with this on ABS then it's likely you need to do that on AUR, too. But asp is not being used on AUR.

The point of this post is that, I don't really see why packages have to be maintained differently on ABS and AUR, and would like to be confirmed it's because of legacy issues (if so), and get to know the direction we are working on.

From my point of view, ABS and AUR are both PKGBUILD repos that help users build from source. The only difference between ABS and AUR should be maintainers, not maintenance systems.

I can see these differences between ABS and AUR right now:

ABS uses SVN (but keeps a Git mirror), while AUR uses Git natively.
ABS has 2 big svntogit Git repos (packages and community). Within these repos, each package has its own branch. AUR uses a separate Git repo for each package.

I hope these gaps will be closed to bring users a uniform experience of building their packages.

cyker · 2018-07-09 09:41:00

Eschwartz wrote:

migrating off of svn and onto git, is on our TODO list. Patches welcome:
https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Us … ts-rewrite
https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Us … pts-status
https://github.com/archlinux/dbscripts

Glad to hear we are on the way. I'm glad to help when I find some spare time, but first of all I need to understand what's the current situation.

Specifically, I'd like to know why we put all ABS packages into 2 svntogit Git repos (packages and community). There are 4 pacman repos (core, extra, community, multilib), not 2. What is the reason for 2+2, not 1+1+1+1 or simply put everything together?

Furthermore, it seems that each package has its own branch within the 2 repos. Is this easier to maintain than giving each package its own Git repo (which is how AUR does it currently)?

I think this is a different topic so I followed Code of conduct:

Choose one topic per thread. Long threads are typically discouraged in the technical issue subforums.

and opened another thread for it. But to my surprise that thread kept being deleted by the same moderator for no good reason. Ironically, he told me to read Code of conduct. FML. So please don't blame me if this thread goes long...

Last edited by cyker (2018-07-09 09:44:44)

loqs · 2018-07-09 10:23:16

cyker wrote:

Specifically, I'd like to know why we put all ABS packages into 2 svntogit Git repos (packages and community). There are 4 pacman repos (core, extra, community, multilib), not 2. What is the reason for 2+2, not 1+1+1+1 or simply put everything together?

You have a solution using svn2git that would map packages and community into a single git? As there are two svn mapping to two git you do not see that as simply representing the current implementation until the transition to git?

cyker wrote:

Furthermore, it seems that each package has its own branch within the 2 repos. Is this easier to maintain than giving each package its own Git repo (which is how AUR does it currently)?

Did you look at the automation provided by database scripts for the current solution?

cyker wrote:

I think this is a different topic so I followed Code of conduct:
Choose one topic per thread. Long threads are typically discouraged in the technical issue subforums.
and opened another thread for it. But to my surprise that thread kept being deleted by the same moderator for no good reason. Ironically, he told me to read Code of conduct. FML. So please don't blame me if this thread goes long...

https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php … 2#p1796432 https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php … 4#p1796454
You ignored the moderators decision with the first deletion and told the moderator not to delete it again in the second as you did not agree with the decision.
Read the Code of Conduct again that you agreed to. You agreed to abide by the moderators decision irrespective of your agreeing with that decision on not.
If you can not or will not follow the Code of Conduct then do not post.

cyker · 2018-07-09 11:11:23

I probably have difficulty understanding answers ending with question marks, so I'll wait for better answers to my questions from knowledgeable persons.

loqs wrote:

You agreed to abide by the moderators decision irrespective of your agreeing with that decision on not. If you can not or will not follow the Code of Conduct then do not post.

I carefully searched the code of conduct, but there's nothing like what you said above. The closest might be:

Support staff have been chosen for their ability to exercise consistently good judgement and shall have the final say. Note that Arch Linux is not run as a democracy. The staff shall always attempt to implement universally peaceful solutions, but in the end, are charged with the responsibility of maintaining peaceful, civil order for the majority of the community.

So I thought some effort might be needed to help some of the moderators improve the judgement and not forget the responsibility. Should this go in vain, I don't waste time. Because this is a tech thread, I'm no longer interested in talking about management, especially when the code has let you note it's not democracy.

Last edited by cyker (2018-07-09 11:12:11)

V1del · 2018-07-09 12:14:37

You probably want to read through https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/DeveloperWiki a lot of the questions and relevant rationale you are asking here are outlined there.

The split into two repos is that packages is for the core repositories [core] [extra] [testing] [staging] where from what I gather only developers have direct commit access whereas community allows TUs as well. Also the "duplicated" trees might stem from the fact that many packages start out on community before they might be relevantly promoted to extra or core.

cyker · 2018-07-09 13:15:03

V1del wrote:

You probably want to read through https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/DeveloperWiki a lot of the questions and relevant rationale you are asking here are outlined there.
The split into two repos is that packages is for the core repositories [core] [extra] [testing] [staging] where from what I gather only developers have direct commit access whereas community allows TUs as well. Also the "duplicated" trees might stem from the fact that many packages start out on community before they might be relevantly promoted to extra or core.

The Policies section in the DeveloperWiki seems to have something related to the repos. And the Historical background section is also very helpful.

Merging all packages into a big repo doesn't seem to work, for access control reasons. But splitting should be fine? Any benefits to keep packages in a single Git repo (on a separate branch) instead of giving each its own Git repo? I would think the two approaches give similar disk usage, but the latter gives a much better isolation between packages and a much cleaner commit history. After all, there is little connection between two packages even if they are in the same pacman repo. They shouldn't bother each other. So I think the AUR way is the right way to go. Is this the direction we are working on right now?

eschwartz · 2018-07-09 17:42:56

One has been implemented, the other has not -- I'm not sure why this is so hard to understand.

cyker wrote:

I probably have difficulty understanding answers ending with question marks, so I'll wait for better answers to my questions from knowledgeable persons.

So, if you ask a question why something isn't done, and then the person you are talking to asks you a question back -- that question being "very well then, how would you implement it instead?" -- you "have difficulty understanding answers" due to the presence of typographical characters like the "?" symbol? What makes you think anyone else has better answers? What makes you think anyone with better answers, cares enough to provide them?

cyker wrote:

So I thought some effort might be needed to help some of the moderators improve the judgement and not forget the responsibility. Should this go in vain, I don't waste time. Because this is a tech thread, I'm no longer interested in talking about management, especially when the code has let you note it's not democracy.

Why are you more obsessed about the management here, than we are? You started out discussing the tech angle of things, but now you're just griping about policies.

cyker wrote:

Specifically, I'd like to know why we put all ABS packages into 2 svntogit Git repos (packages and community). There are 4 pacman repos (core, extra, community, multilib), not 2. What is the reason for 2+2, not 1+1+1+1 or simply put everything together?
Furthermore, it seems that each package has its own branch within the 2 repos. Is this easier to maintain than giving each package its own Git repo (which is how AUR does it currently)?

Why do you keep obsessing over the Git repos, when I've told you several times that

WE DO NOT USE GIT WE USE SUBVERSION

Git is a read-only mirror. It is the exported results of something entirely different. In order to determine why we do anything, you need to look at the subversion repositories and ask your questions about those.

cyker wrote:

Merging all packages into a big repo doesn't seem to work, for access control reasons. But splitting should be fine? Any benefits to keep packages in a single Git repo (on a separate branch) instead of giving each its own Git repo?

Currently neither one is implemented, so there is nothing to keep.

I would think the two approaches give similar disk usage, but the latter gives a much better isolation between packages and a much cleaner commit history. After all, there is little connection between two packages even if they are in the same pacman repo. They shouldn't bother each other. So I think the AUR way is the right way to go. Is this the direction we are working on right now?

Yes.

cyker · 2018-07-09 18:37:31

Alright, ty for clarification. To summarize:

it's svn not git
won't use tags in svn
svn-to-git migration is planned but pretty much nothing right now

gl with the migration then. the communication has gone too hard.

WorMzy · 2018-07-09 18:45:22

Please remember to mark your thread as solved.

https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Co … ow_to_post

cyker · 2018-07-09 19:01:42

WorMzy wrote:

Please remember to mark your thread as solved.
https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Co … ow_to_post

Nice shot. Was about to do that but you came earlier!

Arch Linux

#1 2018-07-08 21:29:38

[SOLVED] Unify user experience on ABS and AUR

#2 2018-07-08 21:44:59

Re: [SOLVED] Unify user experience on ABS and AUR

#3 2018-07-08 21:45:55

Re: [SOLVED] Unify user experience on ABS and AUR

#4 2018-07-08 22:58:14

Re: [SOLVED] Unify user experience on ABS and AUR

#5 2018-07-08 23:30:15

Re: [SOLVED] Unify user experience on ABS and AUR

#6 2018-07-08 23:30:22

Re: [SOLVED] Unify user experience on ABS and AUR

#7 2018-07-09 09:41:00

Re: [SOLVED] Unify user experience on ABS and AUR

#8 2018-07-09 10:23:16

Re: [SOLVED] Unify user experience on ABS and AUR

#9 2018-07-09 11:11:23

Re: [SOLVED] Unify user experience on ABS and AUR

#10 2018-07-09 12:14:37

Re: [SOLVED] Unify user experience on ABS and AUR

#11 2018-07-09 13:15:03

Re: [SOLVED] Unify user experience on ABS and AUR

#12 2018-07-09 17:42:56

Re: [SOLVED] Unify user experience on ABS and AUR

WE DO NOT USE GIT WE USE SUBVERSION

#13 2018-07-09 18:37:31

Re: [SOLVED] Unify user experience on ABS and AUR

#14 2018-07-09 18:45:22

Re: [SOLVED] Unify user experience on ABS and AUR

#15 2018-07-09 19:01:42

Re: [SOLVED] Unify user experience on ABS and AUR

Board footer