"there aren't nearly as many packages in the repos/AUR as X distro"

jdhore · 2008-01-28 03:08:55

shen wrote:

Just a little input about the kopete issue...The package in the AUR is as dated as you can get. Stand alone kopete was only available through ver 0.12.2 and after that only available via the inclusion in the KDE package.
Anyways my thoughts is Arch has plenty of packages and if there isn't one for the one you need making a PKGBUILD isn't hard and if you can't you can request it and 9 times out of 10 a PKGBUILD will be put in the AUR. Arch doesn't have a tone of dated and old worthless packages and only what is current and used and that's good. The devs to a grand job of maintaining a solid repo and I give em props. Bottom line Arch for me is the best distro out there.

You know, i mostly agree with your last statement. Arch is pretty much the perfect distro...Sure, there are better distros for noobs or better distros for people who want to be lazy or people who want to pull every ounce of performance out of their system (no, i don't know why they do it either), but as for best all-around distro...Arch FTW. I may not switch my main Linux Mint/Ubuntu system to Arch (the entire reason i installed Mint was because it's a VERY easy distro to be lazy with and i'm familiar with Debian-based distros the most...I used to be a Debian Developer when that title actually meant something), but as a secondary distro, Arch all the way.

skottish · 2008-01-28 03:36:42

This is a good topic and it should stay on track. Please focus this thread on the question that iphitus had asked.

zodmaner · 2008-01-28 05:29:06

If you asked me two months ago, I would have say gretl and The Ur-Quan Master are what I missed the most in Arch.

But since then both of them have already been added to AUR, making my life perfect.

So, the only complains or request I have for package now is, maybe, Exult which, while it is in the AUR for a long time: http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?d … s=0&SeB=nd, have been abandoned for two years and won't compile.

Hm... maybe it's about time that I should post a request on a AUR request forum.

Last edited by zodmaner (2008-01-28 05:30:07)

veek · 2008-01-28 05:52:01

I kind of have the opposite feeling, so I've always found the question curious.

One of the reasons I switched to Arch is actually because I frequently wanted to run programs that
weren't in other distro's repos. Also all the separate devel packages annoyed me to no end.
I spent too much time hunting for devel packages that were needed to complete a compile.

I often wanted to run the most recent versions of programs (straight from SVN,
CVS, etc), but had to wait for official packages. Sure I could just compile and install, but
then the installed packages weren't managed by the distro's package manager and there
would be no guarantee of a clean uninstall. Also, making a package was usually not trivial.

When I discovered Arch, pacman, ABS, and PKGBUILDs, I thought it was too good to be true. PKGBUILDs
essentially abstract the source of the package and the package itself. makepkg can be used to
build a package from a binary, from a source tarball, or - and this is one of the most important to me -
build directly from any major version control system (CVS, SVN, git, darcs, hg, etc).
The end result in all cases is a package that can be installed and uninstalled cleanly by pacman.

Optionally add yaourt into the mix, with its fantastic ability to transparently build packages out of AUR
(as well as resolve and build dependencies out of AUR ), and you have the most powerful, flexible, and
easy to handle package management system I've yet seen.

I can't remember the last package that I didn't find in the repos or AUR. More commonly I do find the package,
but I want to build from the latest sources so I make a PKGBUILD that checks out and builds from source
instead of downloading a binary.

That said my perspective is that of a proficient Linux user, and that of a user comfortable with hacking around
with hairy pieces of code when things don't work.

Last edited by veek (2008-01-28 05:59:01)

Stefan Husmann · 2008-01-28 06:06:40

wuischke wrote:

Answering seriously:
There are really only few things I miss, but they are pretty special and the Mac SDK is probably legally questionable when packaged. Most of them are so easy to compile manually that I never bothered to create a package.

If these packages are easy to compile they should be easy to package to? It would be very nice to have them in AUR.;)

iphitus · 2008-01-28 07:59:34

Thanks skottish.

It's worth mentioning that if a PKGBUILD is out of date or unmaintained on the AUR -- send an email to the AUR mailing list and it can be orphaned and adopted by someone else.

tomk · 2008-01-28 08:12:23

zodmaner wrote:

So, the only complains or request I have for package now is, maybe, Exult which, while it is in the AUR for a long time: http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?d … s=0&SeB=nd, have been abandoned for two years and won't compile.

exult is now orphaned - adopt it and be happy.

daf666 · 2008-01-28 19:42:24

jdhore wrote:

To get packages from the AUR, i'd suggest using aur-get or Yaourt...Yaourt will try to pull from the repos, but if something's not in the repos, it will try to pull from AUR. aur-get is probably AUR only, but i don't know since i use Yaourt.

Yes that is good, but its not great. new users, or potential new users dont care about tool this or tool that, it only confuses them and gives them another reason why to look further to other distros, actually as a new user (see my original post) that is the reason I didnt use the AUR and rather compiled by hand.

schivmeister · 2008-01-28 19:57:39

Unlike other distros, Arch is not primarily concerned about the user. The user is important, sure, but most important are simplicity and elegance. The user is important as long as it does not interfere with these doctrines.

I don't see how compiled-by-hand is _less_ confusing than AUR. C'mon, if you could read up on installing Arch, and compiling, I'm sure reading up on AUR wouldn't be a big deal, or a deal at all. I too was a little unsure of the AUR and everything during the first few days as I had everything to be functional and productive, but on the other hand I knew I'll have no problem once I did some reading, so I was pretty much in content. And I also don't see how it matters if there are people who "look to other distros" due to self-inflicted FUD.

Last edited by schivmeister (2008-01-28 20:08:47)

jdhore · 2008-01-28 20:37:48

The problem i currently have with the AUR is that a lot of builds are failing on me for one reason or another. Just today alone, Guzuta pyalpm and Kommander all failed on me and i had a bunch fail on me the other day as well

remur · 2008-01-28 21:08:37

I am missing pdftk, it's in AUR, but unmaintained and I can't get it to compile with the usual ./configure, make, it fails at some point due to java problems it seems, debian got it working tho... [EDIT] Weeee, just rechecked it, seems like someone found out about the debian package working in Arch already

But that just as a sidenote that some packages in AUR aren't really useful and a cleanup would be appropriate.

I think the whole [community] repo idea is neat, but just for small things, real projects like kdemod or a compiz svn build need a real repo which have a smaller target audience. I think opensuse did something great with their buildservice, as this spawned tons of upto date packages backported and ready compiled, just it's using the aging rpm, which doesn't seem to like many repos at once

It'd be good to see some more support from to devs towards sideprojects as kdemod, the qt move and the pacman update seems to have taken them in surprise. For example kdemod and other projects could be moved onto the arch mirrors for a start and show them of as extensions to the arch experience, not just people who aren't satisfied with the existing packages.
I think there are multiple areas that would be better off inside a project, like the perl packages in their own repo instead of [community], which could then easily do a testing or unstable repository.
Just my 2cents, I love the way arch is now, but extension repositories would be good

Just as a reminder quote from the wiki...

I'd like to see more work of this type. Sometimes there are certain projects that don't mesh well with other things, such as the community repo. That the 'kdemod' project, for instance.
In the future, well-thought-out user repositories may be ideal for lots of supplementary things. Forming a "web of trust" is important in cases like this, so we may begin keeping a list of "recommended" repositories somewhere, in order to make it seem more official and trustworthy.
Phrakture 12:50, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

Last edited by remur (2008-01-28 21:48:50)

erm67 · 2008-01-28 23:03:50

zodmaner wrote:

So, the only complains or request I have for package now is, maybe, Exult which, while it is in the AUR for a long time: http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?d … s=0&SeB=nd, have been abandoned for two years and won't compile.
Hm... maybe it's about time that I should post a request on a AUR request forum.

Well I saw your post and uploaded exult-cvs to AUR.
The CVS version compiles correctly and runs and I don't think that to hack the source of the stable version to make it compile with the current gcc is a good idea.

zodmaner · 2008-01-29 02:26:40

erm67 wrote:

Well I saw your post and uploaded exult-cvs to AUR.
The CVS version compiles correctly and runs and I don't think that to hack the source of the stable version to make it compile with the current gcc is a good idea.

Holy smoke! Thank you erm67, tomk! Having tomk releases the old Exult package as orphaned is cool enough, but having the new, working package uploaded by erm67 is freaking awesome!

Thank you, thank you guys. You guys are what makes Arch great.

With a great community like this, who cares how many packages we currently have?

Thank you again guys, I really, really appreciated your guys help.

Rumor · 2008-01-29 02:43:23

iphitus wrote:

I still hear this about Arch. I'm really curious to find out what software I'm missing out on. Arch/AUR seems to have almost everything except the most obscure software -- and I remember installing some of that by hand when I used Debian.
So...
What are we missing?
What and how many other distros have it?
Of what significance is it?
Are there any large areas where we are weak?

Frankly I think it is a rather invalid argument. It is akin to saying that Bill's bakery does not have oatmeal raisin cookies, they are seriously lacking. Never mind that they have 120 other varieties of cookies.

No one distro is going to have all the packages that all users think they need to have. Arch gives us the tools to build and install those 'obscure' packages. Arch, like any other Linux offering allows me to install whatever package I might want to use, as does a distro with no repositories or a distro that boasts 100,000 packages.

And probably 90% of users are like those people who frequent the above bakery, look over the menu and then order chocolate chip cookies, never trying any of the other offerings.

erm67 · 2008-01-29 06:57:25

iphitus wrote:

What are we missing?
What and how many other distros have it?
Of what significance is it?
Are there any large areas where we are weak?

One of theese days I will compare Arch repository with other repositories with a script to find out exactly.

AUR as it is today is the strength and the weakness of arch , many packages do not compile or are out-of-date. If the user has problems often the person listed as maintainer can not be found or can not solve the problem. The user than has to follow a complicated path to have the pkg fixed, (mark it as out-of-date, email the maintainer, email some TU, or beg in afourum for the pkg being orphaned ....).
Also maintainer of AUR pks are often users themselves that can put together a PKGBUILD if the source works out-of-the box but at the first problem do not know what to do.

On my opinion AUR should be improved my idea is (tentatively):
Add more reporting buttons (not only out-of-date) i.e.
not compiling
not starting
crashing
out-of-date
Add the possibility to upload alternative PKGBUILD for a package so a working one can be uploaded while the original maintainer is looked for or replaced.

brebs · 2008-01-29 07:21:38

Alternative pkgbuilds are already catered for - just add a suffix to the name, e.g. "-sdl".

cromo · 2008-01-29 08:45:09

erm67 wrote:

On my opinion AUR should be improved my idea is (tentatively):
Add more reporting buttons (not only out-of-date) i.e.
not compiling
not starting
crashing
out-of-date

I don't second that, it'd happen very often that the "crashing" or "not compiling" was not reporoducible for package maintainer. Besides, that's what the comments are for.
However it should be possible to post a quick bug report directly for a package from its page on archlinux.org/packages/. Sometimes it's just too much hassle to go through all the bug reporting process if you only want to quickly report some trival issue. Also it happens that you'd rather like to ask the maintainer something and a bug report for that would be a definitely an overkill. Possibly a commenting system like for the AUR packages would be fine. Or a "PM the package maintainer" button.

Yeah, I know it's OT. But I really don't think that NUMBER of the packages available is an issue, it's rather the MAINTENANCE itself.

And please, please!!! Make the AUR cookie that remembers the user after logging in! I hate doing that everytime I want to comment something.

Last edited by cromo (2008-01-29 08:48:07)

iphitus · 2008-01-29 09:28:54

Discussions of the AUR aside... I wanted to find out why this myth is still perpetuated.

From what I can see:
- On a pure numeric scale, Arch loses out as we don't have -dev, -common, perl-*, etc. These are all redundant due to a different implementation and style.
- Lack of AUR awareness/understanding. People don't know it's there, thus packages appear unavailable.
- Poorly maintained AUR packages. I guess we can simply spread the knowledge that TU's can orphan packages at their discretion.

I've yet to see any large or significant packages named that are actually "missing" from the Arch resources. I guess the design of the AUR eliminates this. If a project has reasonable following within the Arch community, then it inevitably ends up on the AUR or a repository.

So is this myth busted? Or does anyone know some mythical number of packages we lack that other distros have?

zodmaner · 2008-01-29 11:52:14

iphitus wrote:

So is this myth busted? Or does anyone know some mythical number of packages we lack that other distros have?

IMHO, I would call it busted. From what I've seen, most people who said that Arch lacks any packages are based their opinion on numbers alone, and as you have said, the only reason we lost out on the numbers is because we don't split packages into million of pieces (which I glad we didn't and are one of the reason I like Arch).

Last edited by zodmaner (2008-01-29 11:53:33)

jacko · 2008-01-29 12:42:23

I wanted to find out why this myth is still perpetuated.

Lack of AUR awareness/understanding. People don't know it's there, thus packages appear unavailable.

Yep, I'd say that's about it. But in no way have you busted the myth on why it perpetuates till u take care of the above situation.

I know it took me a good 48 hours before I first found the AUR and decided to try it, like another member here, at first glance I was sorta worried to try it. It does look very daunting for someone who does not program or has no programming knowledge. I was lucky, I had very basic syntax knowledge of programming and it helps tremendously when packages fail to compile.

Last edited by jacko (2008-01-29 13:11:17)

test1000 · 2008-01-29 13:07:45

I bet archlinux is the distro with the most packages of all distros if you also count the AUR packages. Perhaps ubuntu would take the lead if you also counted all 3rdparty repositories but in arch this is not so inherent as well as all the trouble with -dev files etc

Also I think yaourt should be avalable in [community] to give the guy some credit. The only thing that should be done is to post somesuch msg on install like:

"Yaourt is a unofficial UNSUPPORTED shellscript that is now being bundled with Arch. It allows you to search the AUR aswell as other things. It is being bundled because of the inherent usefulness of the utility but beware that downloading packages from the AUR(aur.archlinux.org) is UNSUPPORTED IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM BY THE DEVS OF THIS DISTRO AND DOWNLOADING PACKAGES FROM AUR COMES WITH ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY OR GUARANTEE TO YOUR COMPUTERS HEALTH"

or something like that...

PJ · 2008-01-29 14:17:45

test1000 wrote:

Also I think yaourt should be avalable in [community] to give the guy some credit.

It's been discussed before and I don't think that's going to happend.

Snowman wrote:

Tools like aurbuild or qpkg will never go in the community repo because they install packages that are unsupported. If they would be in the community repo, some users might get the impression that they can start to install any unsupported package without first examining the PKGBUILD, .install file and other files that comes with them. I'm not saying that aurbuild or qpkg are bad (they can be quite useful) but they will remain in unsupported.

AUR: aurbuild
http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=19475

Packages that will remain in unsupported
aurbuild A utility to build and install packages from AUR. Automatically installs unsupported packages.
yaourt Yet another Archlinux package manager wrapper Automatically installs unsupported packages.

http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Com … candidates

Last edited by PJ (2008-01-29 14:23:27)

Basn · 2008-01-29 14:31:07

fish for irssi is the only thing i had to make a PKGBUILD for and mine was really messy but hey it worked

sen · 2008-01-31 05:01:24

PJ wrote:

test1000 wrote:
Also I think yaourt should be avalable in [community] to give the guy some credit.
It's been discussed before and I don't think that's going to happend.
...
Packages that will remain in unsupported
yaourt Yet another Archlinux package manager wrapper Automatically installs unsupported packages.
http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Com … candidates

I use yaourt and that information is outdated.
Yaourt asks and warns the user every time he wants to install a unsupported package to examine the PKGBUILD first!

I completely agree with test1000. If a wrapper like yaourt would be available in a repo, or it's features would be included in pacman, it would make AUR more attractive for the userbase.

zodmaner · 2008-01-31 05:47:08

sen wrote:

I completely agree with test1000. If a wrapper like yaourt would be available in a repo, or it's features would be included in pacman, it would make AUR more attractive for the userbase.

IMHO, I find it hard to believe that Arch userbase needs yaourt to find it attractive to use AUR. Yes, yaourt make it easier to use AUR, but it is not necessary to use it.

Also, there's a legal implication as well. Some packages in AUR have a license that prevent it to be included into the official repositories (that's why such packages are in AUR to begin with). So to include a function that allows automatic installation of such packages could be problematic.

Mind you, I like yaourt, but I don't think including it into our official repos would solves the problem.

My 2 cents on the matter is that it doesn't matter what we do if the person in question (be it new user or reviewer) can't really be bothered to sit down and read our website/wiki to learns how to use pacman and AUR in the first place (hell, we even have a link to AUR on our first page! how can anyone missed that?).

Last edited by zodmaner (2008-01-31 06:06:39)

Arch Linux

#26 2008-01-28 03:08:55

Re: "there aren't nearly as many packages in the repos/AUR as X distro"

#27 2008-01-28 03:36:42

Re: "there aren't nearly as many packages in the repos/AUR as X distro"

#28 2008-01-28 05:29:06

Re: "there aren't nearly as many packages in the repos/AUR as X distro"

#29 2008-01-28 05:52:01

Re: "there aren't nearly as many packages in the repos/AUR as X distro"

#30 2008-01-28 06:06:40

Re: "there aren't nearly as many packages in the repos/AUR as X distro"

#31 2008-01-28 07:59:34

Re: "there aren't nearly as many packages in the repos/AUR as X distro"

#32 2008-01-28 08:12:23

Re: "there aren't nearly as many packages in the repos/AUR as X distro"

#33 2008-01-28 19:42:24

Re: "there aren't nearly as many packages in the repos/AUR as X distro"

#34 2008-01-28 19:57:39

Re: "there aren't nearly as many packages in the repos/AUR as X distro"

#35 2008-01-28 20:37:48

Re: "there aren't nearly as many packages in the repos/AUR as X distro"

#36 2008-01-28 21:08:37

Re: "there aren't nearly as many packages in the repos/AUR as X distro"

#37 2008-01-28 23:03:50

Re: "there aren't nearly as many packages in the repos/AUR as X distro"

#38 2008-01-29 02:26:40

Re: "there aren't nearly as many packages in the repos/AUR as X distro"

#39 2008-01-29 02:43:23

Re: "there aren't nearly as many packages in the repos/AUR as X distro"

#40 2008-01-29 06:57:25

Re: "there aren't nearly as many packages in the repos/AUR as X distro"

#41 2008-01-29 07:21:38

Re: "there aren't nearly as many packages in the repos/AUR as X distro"

#42 2008-01-29 08:45:09

Re: "there aren't nearly as many packages in the repos/AUR as X distro"

#43 2008-01-29 09:28:54

Re: "there aren't nearly as many packages in the repos/AUR as X distro"

#44 2008-01-29 11:52:14

Re: "there aren't nearly as many packages in the repos/AUR as X distro"

#45 2008-01-29 12:42:23

Re: "there aren't nearly as many packages in the repos/AUR as X distro"

#46 2008-01-29 13:07:45

Re: "there aren't nearly as many packages in the repos/AUR as X distro"

#47 2008-01-29 14:17:45

Re: "there aren't nearly as many packages in the repos/AUR as X distro"

#48 2008-01-29 14:31:07

Re: "there aren't nearly as many packages in the repos/AUR as X distro"

#49 2008-01-31 05:01:24

Re: "there aren't nearly as many packages in the repos/AUR as X distro"

#50 2008-01-31 05:47:08

Re: "there aren't nearly as many packages in the repos/AUR as X distro"

Board footer