packer - New bash aur+pacman wrapper (replaces poorly written yaourt)

flamelab · 2010-02-24 03:37:28

venky80 wrote:

is this hosted in any repository?

I have it on adslgr64 repository, but as the guys said, you can build it easily yourself

Last edited by flamelab (2010-02-24 03:38:13)

Vamp898 · 2010-02-24 13:51:10

belak51 wrote:

I don't like how it asks about 5 times whether you install the package... if I say I want to install it, I want to install it. Like you said, it's also slow and bloated. I love the idea of the AUR but not that there are no official decent tools that work with it.

Than you´re just to stupid to setup /etc/yaourtrc beceause there you can set up if yaourt should ask you, how often and in which situations

for example yaourt never asks me for anything. Thats riskant but i like it this way

And the stuff with official tools. There will never be official tools for AUR beceause AUR is "UNSUPPORTED".

Tools which are able to install from AUR will never get into the arch repos beceause you can install dangerous software with them which maybe destroy your system.

#    ~/yaourtrc  - Configuration for yaourt
#
#   See yaourt(8) for more information
#
#
#
#   AlwaysUpgradeDevel no
   AlwaysUpgradeAur yes
#   AlwaysForce no
#   AurVoteSupport yes
#   AutoSaveBackupFile no
#   ColorMod Normal
#   ColorMod LightBackGround
#   ColorMod NoColor
#   ColorMod TextOnly
#   DontNeedToPressEnter yes
#   EditPkgbuild yes
#   ExportToLocalRepository /where/you/want
#   ForceEnglish no
#   LastCommentsNumber 5
#   LastCommentsOrder asc
   NoConfirm yes
   PacmanBin /usr/bin/pacman-color
#   PkgbuildEditor gvim
#   SearchInAurUnsupported yes
#   ShowAurComment yes
#   TmpDirectory /where/you/want
#   UpdateTerminalTitle yes

Last edited by Vamp898 (2010-02-24 13:51:59)

handy · 2010-03-03 07:29:17

So, please forgive my ignorance? How do we get packer into the extra/community repo?

Packer needs to become a standard part of the Arch system.

Last edited by handy (2010-03-03 08:02:11)

sHyLoCk · 2010-03-03 08:29:00

I agree with handy! It already has 202 votes. I think you need to request in [aur-general] ? Not sure.

handy · 2010-03-03 08:53:23

sHyLoCk wrote:

I agree with handy! It already has 202 votes. I think you need to request in [aur-general] ? Not sure.

I have asked an admin', so when I get the story I'll let you know, (unless he posts it here).

flamelab · 2010-03-03 09:55:35

Since yaourt, aurbuild and other AUR helpers use the unsupported AUR, they can't enter community. So does packer.

handy · 2010-03-03 10:01:45

flamelab wrote:

Since yaourt, aurbuild and other AUR helpers use the unsupported AUR, they can't enter community. So does packer.

Just to verify what my slow brain understood of what you said above flamelab.

It is impossible for packer to get any closer to the Arch system than AUR?

Only pacman has THAT privilege?

X-dark · 2010-03-03 10:16:35

handy wrote:

flamelab wrote:
Since yaourt, aurbuild and other AUR helpers use the unsupported AUR, they can't enter community. So does packer.
Just to verify what my slow brain understood of what you said above flamelab.
It is impossible for packer to get any closer to the Arch system than AUR?
Only pacman has THAT privilege?

It is not a privilege. Supporting a software that install unsupported software would imply that the unsupported software is somewhat supported.

flamelab · 2010-03-03 11:21:41

handy wrote:

flamelab wrote:
Since yaourt, aurbuild and other AUR helpers use the unsupported AUR, they can't enter community. So does packer.
Just to verify what my slow brain understood of what you said above flamelab.
It is impossible for packer to get any closer to the Arch system than AUR?
Only pacman has THAT privilege?

Pacman provides packages that are supported by the devs.

Yaourt/packer/etc provide PKGBUILDs (and packages after they are built) that aren't supported by the devs.

They can't provide support for packages that they don't control themselves.

Last edited by flamelab (2010-03-03 11:22:10)

handy · 2010-03-03 13:16:28

K, thanks, that makes perfect sense.

I guess I already new that, I just forget stuff too quickly for my own good.

kaivalagi · 2010-03-03 17:03:33

Would be good if packer had it's own repo like bauerbill, prefer using packer BTW

X-dark · 2010-03-03 17:09:12

What for ?

kaivalagi · 2010-03-03 19:10:22

X-dark wrote:

What for ?

So it can be installed with pacman easily, an AUR based install ideally needs a tool such as packer in the first place. I guess you could always install yaourt from the archlinuxfr repo and then install packer from the AUR...

Just thinking from a fresh setup perspective

Last edited by kaivalagi (2010-03-03 19:12:15)

brisbin33 · 2010-03-03 20:01:14

guys,

number one: aur tools that install aur packages must remain in the aur. period.

number two: in order to use a tool like packer, etc it is strongly recommended that you learn how to use the aur manually first so that you know what's going on under the hood and can take action in the event of errors.

number three: it's just not that hard... at all

wget && tar && cd && makepkg -i

kaivalagi · 2010-03-03 20:28:28

I'm just lazy I guess brisbin33

All your points are valid though, AUR is AUR I suppose, how can I disagree with the dude anyway (bet you've heard that before)

I'm on a rolling release so what do I care now anyway, I have the tools installed and thats that

Last edited by kaivalagi (2010-03-03 20:31:11)

rson451 · 2010-03-03 22:17:49

kaivalagi wrote:

how can I disagree with the dude anyway

I disagree with brisbin all the time. That dude is craAAAazay.

brisbin33 · 2010-03-03 22:29:47

rson451 wrote:

kaivalagi wrote:
how can I disagree with the dude anyway
I disagree with brisbin all the time. That dude is craAAAazay.

fact: rson only disagrees with me when he's wrong.

the dude abides.

/thread derailment.

clesch · 2010-03-06 09:26:14

I'm feeling pretty stupid here, I hope you can help me out.
I've edited a PKGBUILD while installing a package via packer and would now like to reinstall it using the default PKGBUILD instead of my edited version. Packer seems to insist on using my modified/cached PKGBUILD though.
After googling for 25 minutes I still can't figure out what option to use to solve this. Can anyone help me out here?

kaivalagi · 2010-03-06 09:48:24

clesch wrote:

I'm feeling pretty stupid here, I hope you can help me out.
I've edited a PKGBUILD while installing a package via packer and would now like to reinstall it using the default PKGBUILD instead of my edited version. Packer seems to insist on using my modified/cached PKGBUILD though.
After googling for 25 minutes I still can't figure out what option to use to solve this. Can anyone help me out here?

Not sure on the best way but if you remove all the packer files from under /tmp you should have a fresh start on any package installed, or you can just reboot..........I think.....

Last edited by kaivalagi (2010-03-06 09:48:43)

clesch · 2010-03-06 09:51:35

kaivalagi wrote:

clesch wrote:
I'm feeling pretty stupid here, I hope you can help me out.
I've edited a PKGBUILD while installing a package via packer and would now like to reinstall it using the default PKGBUILD instead of my edited version. Packer seems to insist on using my modified/cached PKGBUILD though.
After googling for 25 minutes I still can't figure out what option to use to solve this. Can anyone help me out here?
Not sure on the best way but if you remove all the packer files from under /tmp you should have a fresh start on any package installed, or you can just reboot..........I think.....

Thanks.
I've just found out that pacman -Scc solves the issue by clearing all caches. Not sure if that is the most elegant way (as it deletes all other modified PKGBUILDs as well) but it worked in my case.

drcouzelis · 2010-03-06 15:52:08

clesch wrote:

I've just found out that pacman -Scc solves the issue by clearing all caches. Not sure if that is the most elegant way (as it deletes all other modified PKGBUILDs as well) but it worked in my case.

Yeah, using "pacman -Scc" is pretty severe! It deletes all of the backup packages on your computer. I'm actually really surprised that this solved your problem because it doesn't make any sense to me: packer stores it's temporary data in "/tmp/packer*" directories, but you seem to have used pacman to delete all of the pacman packages that are in... some other directory. (not "/tmp")

Deleting all of the "/tmp/packer*" files or rebooting should have solved the problem.

I don't doubt that you did find a solution to your problem. I just want to make sure anybody who reads this in the future doesn't immediately start deleting their pacman package cache before trying a more simple solution.

handy · 2010-03-06 23:16:05

I always like to use "pacman -Sc" when I know that my system is functioning fine. As it leaves the currently installed packages in cache, giving me an easy way out if the next upgrade causes trouble requiring me to downgrade, but taking up the minimal amount of space in the meantime.

q0tsa · 2010-03-13 10:15:35

I think I found a bug.

I wanna install firebrand from aur (not archlinuxfr), so I do the following:

packer firebrand
0 archlinuxfr/firebrand 3.6-1
    A script to brand Firefox without recompiling.
1 aur/firebrand 3.6-2
    A script to brand Firefox without recompiling. 

Type numbers to install. Separate each number with a space.
Numbers:

Then I select 1 but it installs from archlinuxfr anyway. With yaourt it works.

X-dark · 2010-03-13 10:19:42

q0tsa wrote:

I think I found a bug.
I wanna install firebrand from aur (not archlinuxfr), so I do the following:
Then I select 1 but it installs from archlinuxfr anyway. With yaourt it works.

A workaround would be to do :

packer -S aur/firebrand

BTW, what's wrong with Firefox being nammed Namoroka ? It's the same, works the same ...

q0tsa · 2010-03-13 18:36:08

packer -S aur/firebrand

/tmp/packertmp-1000/aur/firebrand.info: No such file or directory
grep: /tmp/packertmp-1000/aur/firebrand.info: No such file or directory
/tmp/packertmp-1000/aur/firebrand.PKGBUILD: No such file or directory
/usr/bin/packer: line 126: /tmp/packertmp-1000/aur/firebrand.PKGBUILD: No such file or directory
/tmp/packertmp-1000/aur/firebrand.info: No such file or directory
grep: /tmp/packertmp-1000/aur/firebrand.info: No such file or directory

Aur Targets    (1): aur/firebrand

Proceed with installation? [Y/n] 
/tmp/packertmp-1000/aur/firebrand.PKGBUILD: No such file or directory
/usr/bin/packer: line 126: /tmp/packertmp-1000/aur/firebrand.PKGBUILD: No such file or directory
--2010-03-13 19:26:32--  http://aur.archlinux.org/packages/aur/firebrand/aur/firebrand.tar.gz
Resolving aur.archlinux.org... 208.92.232.29
Connecting to aur.archlinux.org|208.92.232.29|:80... connected.
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 404 Not Found
2010-03-13 19:26:33 ERROR 404: Not Found.

tar: aur/firebrand.tar.gz: Cannot open: No such file or directory
tar: Error is not recoverable: exiting now
/usr/bin/packer: line 273: cd: aur/firebrand: No such file or directory
No PKGBUILD found in directory.

The bug affects other aur-packages too:

packer -S aur/virtualbox_bin

/tmp/packertmp-1000/aur/virtualbox_bin.info: No such file or directory
grep: /tmp/packertmp-1000/aur/virtualbox_bin.info: No such file or directory
/tmp/packertmp-1000/aur/virtualbox_bin.PKGBUILD: No such file or directory
/usr/bin/packer: line 126: /tmp/packertmp-1000/aur/virtualbox_bin.PKGBUILD: No such file or directory
/tmp/packertmp-1000/aur/virtualbox_bin.info: No such file or directory
grep: /tmp/packertmp-1000/aur/virtualbox_bin.info: No such file or directory

Aur Targets    (1): aur/virtualbox_bin

Proceed with installation? [Y/n] 
/tmp/packertmp-1000/aur/virtualbox_bin.PKGBUILD: No such file or directory
/usr/bin/packer: line 126: /tmp/packertmp-1000/aur/virtualbox_bin.PKGBUILD: No such file or directory
--2010-03-13 19:27:39--  http://aur.archlinux.org/packages/aur/virtualbox_bin/aur/virtualbox_bin.tar.gz
Resolving aur.archlinux.org... 208.92.232.29
Connecting to aur.archlinux.org|208.92.232.29|:80... connected.
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 404 Not Found
2010-03-13 19:27:39 ERROR 404: Not Found.

tar: aur/virtualbox_bin.tar.gz: Cannot open: No such file or directory
tar: Error is not recoverable: exiting now
/usr/bin/packer: line 273: cd: aur/virtualbox_bin: No such file or directory
No PKGBUILD found in directory.

X-dark wrote:

BTW, what's wrong with Firefox being nammed Namoroka ? It's the same, works the same ...

Not really the right place to discuss this. Let's say I'm just used to the original icons and firebrand is a very easy way to get them.

Arch Linux

#326 2010-02-24 03:37:28

Re: packer - New bash aur+pacman wrapper (replaces poorly written yaourt)

#327 2010-02-24 13:51:10

Re: packer - New bash aur+pacman wrapper (replaces poorly written yaourt)

#328 2010-03-03 07:29:17

Re: packer - New bash aur+pacman wrapper (replaces poorly written yaourt)

#329 2010-03-03 08:29:00

Re: packer - New bash aur+pacman wrapper (replaces poorly written yaourt)

#330 2010-03-03 08:53:23

Re: packer - New bash aur+pacman wrapper (replaces poorly written yaourt)

#331 2010-03-03 09:55:35

Re: packer - New bash aur+pacman wrapper (replaces poorly written yaourt)

#332 2010-03-03 10:01:45

Re: packer - New bash aur+pacman wrapper (replaces poorly written yaourt)

#333 2010-03-03 10:16:35

Re: packer - New bash aur+pacman wrapper (replaces poorly written yaourt)

#334 2010-03-03 11:21:41

Re: packer - New bash aur+pacman wrapper (replaces poorly written yaourt)

#335 2010-03-03 13:16:28

Re: packer - New bash aur+pacman wrapper (replaces poorly written yaourt)

#336 2010-03-03 17:03:33

Re: packer - New bash aur+pacman wrapper (replaces poorly written yaourt)

#337 2010-03-03 17:09:12

Re: packer - New bash aur+pacman wrapper (replaces poorly written yaourt)

#338 2010-03-03 19:10:22

Re: packer - New bash aur+pacman wrapper (replaces poorly written yaourt)

#339 2010-03-03 20:01:14

Re: packer - New bash aur+pacman wrapper (replaces poorly written yaourt)

#340 2010-03-03 20:28:28

Re: packer - New bash aur+pacman wrapper (replaces poorly written yaourt)

#341 2010-03-03 22:17:49

Re: packer - New bash aur+pacman wrapper (replaces poorly written yaourt)

#342 2010-03-03 22:29:47

Re: packer - New bash aur+pacman wrapper (replaces poorly written yaourt)

#343 2010-03-06 09:26:14

Re: packer - New bash aur+pacman wrapper (replaces poorly written yaourt)

#344 2010-03-06 09:48:24

Re: packer - New bash aur+pacman wrapper (replaces poorly written yaourt)

#345 2010-03-06 09:51:35

Re: packer - New bash aur+pacman wrapper (replaces poorly written yaourt)

#346 2010-03-06 15:52:08

Re: packer - New bash aur+pacman wrapper (replaces poorly written yaourt)

#347 2010-03-06 23:16:05

Re: packer - New bash aur+pacman wrapper (replaces poorly written yaourt)

#348 2010-03-13 10:15:35

Re: packer - New bash aur+pacman wrapper (replaces poorly written yaourt)

#349 2010-03-13 10:19:42

Re: packer - New bash aur+pacman wrapper (replaces poorly written yaourt)

#350 2010-03-13 18:36:08

Re: packer - New bash aur+pacman wrapper (replaces poorly written yaourt)

Board footer