Contributing packages.

sarah31 · 2003-03-22 19:58:58

Hi all,

just a short note for contributing packages to arch linux. i was browsing through the incoming directory today at ftp.archlinux.org and noticed an over abundance of regular packages in there. while there is generally no problem with this it prevents me or Xentac from including them in the unofficial or unstable trees. so if you are contributing a package to arch linux there are just a few small requst that we have in order to consider your packages for inclusion in the trees.

what one needs to provide is:

their PKGBUILD, filelist, and the package itself. place them in a directory named after the package then tarball this directory. then you may upload this tarball.

without a PKGBUILD your packages will never be included in the trees. i will not reverse engineer a PKGBUILD to go with the package. A PKGBUILD is absolutely required by tree maintainers.

i will endeavour to contact those individuals who have uploaded packages only to incoming but if this post gets to you first please do the above in order for your packages to be included.

EDIT: oh yes there will be more documantation regarding packages soon so please check the documentation periodically.

BluPhoenyx · 2003-03-23 02:20:37

I personally like this (as described by Sarah) method for user distribution of pkg files. Following these rules also allows another user to download your archive and place it into their local repository. From there, they can then upgrade whenever they prefer. Sometimes it is nice to be able to downgrade or even skip an update or two.

FWIW, this is a great way to allow users to distribute files without forcing the current maintainers to work with a constantly growing pkg repository. Users can upload packages, which can then be stress tested by the AL community and then, when desired they could be added to the Arch repositories.

_JeffG_ · 2003-08-20 02:22:30

I have 2 things to say about my package I built.

1. It does not include a filelist in my tarball. Simply I did a 'makepkg -c' so it cleaned things up since I thought because it was something that was generated with a makepkg automatically.

2. What about a naming convention to our uploaded packages containing the filelist, PKGBUILD, and actual package.. Maybe something like packagename-1.0.pkgsrc.tar.gz or something to differentiate it from a real package with the .pkg.tar.gz or the orignal source tarball of simply .tar.gz. I was not sure how to name mine.

Jeff

neri · 2003-08-20 11:57:57

Hi Jeff;

_JeffG_ wrote:

I have 2 things to say about my package I built.
1. It does not include a filelist in my tarball. Simply I did a 'makepkg -c' so it cleaned things up since I thought because it was something that was generated with a makepkg automatically.
2. What about a naming convention to our uploaded packages containing the filelist, PKGBUILD, and actual package.. Maybe something like packagename-1.0.pkgsrc.tar.gz or something to differentiate it from a real package with the .pkg.tar.gz or the orignal source tarball of simply .tar.gz. I was not sure how to name mine.
Jeff

1. I think makepkg -c 's intention is mostly to make quick rebuilds of
packages, for optimization on a certain machine. If you really wanna
contribute your stuff, clean up the source manually and keep .filelist -
In other words: don't use makepkg -c then.

2. I don't think it is good to name *.pkg.tar.gz. As you mentioned, it's too
easy to confuse them whith real packages. If you insert an pkgsrc - well
maybe its good, but not necessary I think. Most people name them after
the source tar-balls, sometimes using tar.bz2 instead of the far common
tar.gz. It's gonna be useful to keep the version number - maintainer can
filter out easier outdated packages.

bye neri

_JeffG_ · 2003-08-20 13:41:18

yes... my point with the second part was that if you just use the .tar.gz or .tar.bz2 then you might confuse that with the original src package of the software. Using usip for example, its src is called usip-20030618.tar.gz and if I upload my package+pkgbuild+filelist with the same name... then somebody might confuse that with the real src tarball since they may not know the purpose of incoming on ftp.archlinux.org. Thus, I suggested something different to represent that we are talking about these special pkg submission tarballs.

Jeff

sarah31 · 2003-08-20 15:24:21

well i will consider the naming conventions. but to date there has been no issues that i know of of the present naming system. all developers with read/write/delete permissions for incoming are aware of the naming conventions and this is what matters the most. i know that sounds harsh but ...

if you want to add ".pkgsrc." or something along those lines to your contributions feel free to just don't use .pkg. or it will likely be considered a package and be erased. with respect to pkgsrc that may not be the best differentiator either (if you think about it a bit you may get my reason )

EDIT as for point one add an alias to your bashrc:

alias mkpkg="makepkg;rm -rf src/ pkg/"

works great for me.

_JeffG_ · 2003-08-20 16:34:25

Yeah... pkgsrc just did not settle right with me. it was only an example of an idea. Anyway... I named my latest one was named in the following format packagename-1.0.pkgbuild.tar.gz. Best I can think of... not that it really matters as you pointed out. All I know that is Arch Linux is growing on me. I am not a great coder so i try to help by brainstorming things to help improve it.

Anyway, I have a couple things to convert to Arch packages before I will reload my main box with Arch again.

Jeff

sarah31 · 2003-08-20 17:11:13

heh i am no coder either i am beginning to understand how certain code works(definitely understand c more than c++).

i undetstand your concern ... and like i said i will consider what sort of changes can be made to make clear to all how packages in incoming should be named and so forth.

rasat · 2004-04-01 07:45:26

When posting a new package in the Forum, please also paste the PKGBUILD info. If the package is not added to Extra nor Current, at least there is a PKGBUILD users can use for upgrading or more information.

TheBashar · 2004-09-07 18:56:56

rasat wrote:

When posting a new package in the Forum, please also paste the PKGBUILD info.

What about builds that require additional files besides just the PKGBUILD? Should we paste the contents of all the support files (init script, pkg.install, etc) into the forum post? If not, is there any reason to post the PKGBUILD since it's not sufficient to build the package?

Cheers,
Steve

rasat · 2004-09-07 22:51:31

TheBashar wrote:

What about builds that require additional files besides just the PKGBUILD?

Post also scripts and file links related to the PKGBUILD. For other users to find it, add the package name in AIR:
http://bliss-solutions.org/archlinux/incoming/

Arch Linux

#1 2003-03-22 19:58:58

Contributing packages.

#2 2003-03-23 02:20:37

Re: Contributing packages.

#3 2003-08-20 02:22:30

Re: Contributing packages.

#4 2003-08-20 11:57:57

Re: Contributing packages.

#5 2003-08-20 13:41:18

Re: Contributing packages.

#6 2003-08-20 15:24:21

Re: Contributing packages.

#7 2003-08-20 16:34:25

Re: Contributing packages.

#8 2003-08-20 17:11:13

Re: Contributing packages.

#9 2004-04-01 07:45:26

Re: Contributing packages.

#10 2004-09-07 18:56:56

Re: Contributing packages.

#11 2004-09-07 22:51:31

Re: Contributing packages.

Board footer