Arch Linux

zf

Member

Registered: 2019-03-04

Posts: 6

Being prompted for provider despite dropping support for features

EDIT: libbemenu.so resolves to bemenu, which requires bemenu-renderer, so is there a way to e.g. suggest the renderer as bemenu-wayland?

-------

This PKGBUILD provides bemenu and prompts for a bemenu-renderer to install (bemenu-ncurses  2) bemenu-wayland  3) bemenu-x11). I'm only interested in building bemenu for wayland (and also patch it). I don't want to be prompted to select which renderer to install so I strip the PKGBUILD down to this PKGBUILD.

However, when I

makepkg -scirf

, it still prompts for a renderer to install:

==> Checking runtime dependencies...
==> Installing missing dependencies...
resolving dependencies...
:: There are 3 providers available for bemenu-renderer:
:: Repository extra
   1) bemenu-ncurses  2) bemenu-wayland  3) bemenu-x11

Enter a number (default=1):

Any ideas is much appreciated.

Also, I was wondering how I can be notified of an update to bemenu if I were to use my custom PKGBUILD (either based on whether the original bemenu PKGBUILD my PKGBUILD is based on or directly from the repo). Is there a better way than to e.g. pull from the repo periodically to see if there are new releases?

Last edited by zf (2024-08-09 04:43:01)

Lone_Wolf

Administrator

From: Netherlands, Europe

Registered: 2005-10-04

Posts: 12,926

Re: Being prompted for provider despite dropping support for features

When you create your own version of a repo packasge you should give it a unique name to avoid confusion .

This will also make it easier to depend on your specific version instead of repo versions .

You should also start without any dependencies and use clean chroot building to determine whick makedeps/deps are really necessary for your versiom .

For tracking upstream updates https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Arch_p … h_upstream lists some options.

Sidenote : A different title may help to attract more answers.

---

Disliking systemd intensely, but not satisfied with alternatives so focusing on taming systemd.

clean chroot building not flexible enough ?
Try clean chroot manager by graysky