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

X-dark · 2010-04-12 07:54:05

bruenig wrote:

By the way, for those interested, if you do packer -S packer and get the latest git version of packer, you can use the script here: http://github.com/bruenig/pacwrap/blob/master/pacwrap.
It is a wrapper for all of those crying about wanting to be able to do EVERYTHING with packer. Anyways, I clearly spent little to no time on it. But for those who want to play with it, there it is.

Whowh, should have required you hours !
There is an extra dot at the end of your URI

Last edited by X-dark (2010-04-12 07:54:25)

Cdh · 2010-04-12 08:37:43

I don't really like that all packages are build in /tmp/, especially the -git ones. git checkouts are often really big (>200mb) and you don't want to download that every time you update a package that has maybe 300 kb changes.

yaourt has this directory in /var/abs/local/yaourtbuild and I would think /var/cache/packer/git/ or something like that would be appropriate to store git repositories...

MajorTom · 2010-04-12 14:38:00

bruenig wrote:

By the way, for those interested, if you do packer -S packer and get the latest git version of packer, you can use the script here: http://github.com/bruenig/pacwrap/blob/master/pacwrap
It is a wrapper for all of those crying about wanting to be able to do EVERYTHING with packer. Anyways, I clearly spent little to no time on it. But for those who want to play with it, there it is.

I've been using this one-liner after every packer update:

sed -i '/-\*)/c\    -*) runasroot $outputpacman "$@" ; exit ;;' /usr/bin/packer

Don't know of any negative implications of this mod but it has worked for me without problems so far. Hopefully it doesn't pose any security issues.

Having a single command to do everything - installs, queries, removals - is indeed useful.

grogers3.14 · 2010-04-12 15:01:21

Could you add a check for whether the package is flagged out of date during an update? e.g

$ packer -Su --auronly
:: Synchronizing aur database...
 aur                                         23  23 [#####################] 100%
:: Warning: Package xxx is out of date
:: Starting full aur upgrade...
 local database is up to date

You already have a function to check if a package is out of date, and I think it would be really useful if it was used here.

EDIT: this patch adds that functionality

Also, not as important, but would it be possible to ask the user if they want to see the comments in the aur, similar to yaourt except the user can choose whether to see them. e.g

$ packer -S packer

Aur Targets    (1): packer

View AUR comments? [y/N] n
Proceed with installation? [Y/n]

Last edited by grogers3.14 (2010-04-12 15:36:41)

pickboy87 · 2010-04-12 23:18:58

Not sure if this is a bug or if I did something wrong, but whenever I install something or update something with packer it asks for the password for root access (which is fine), but EVERY TIME the first password attempt is 'wrong'. I have to enter it in twice before it lets me continue installing.

I thought it was a simple mistype the first couple of times, but I've gone slowly each time and it still asks me twice. Am I missing something?

bruenig · 2010-04-15 04:23:15

pickboy87 wrote:

Not sure if this is a bug or if I did something wrong, but whenever I install something or update something with packer it asks for the password for root access (which is fine), but EVERY TIME the first password attempt is 'wrong'. I have to enter it in twice before it lets me continue installing.
I thought it was a simple mistype the first couple of times, but I've gone slowly each time and it still asks me twice. Am I missing something?

I am unable to replicate this. So...

Cdh · 2010-04-17 21:27:44

Cdh wrote:

I don't really like that all packages are build in /tmp/, especially the -git ones. git checkouts are often really big (>200mb) and you don't want to download that every time you update a package that has maybe 300 kb changes.
yaourt has this directory in /var/abs/local/yaourtbuild and I would think /var/cache/packer/git/ or something like that would be appropriate to store git repositories...

Was this answered anywhere before which I didn't read?

Also some option to store built packages would be nice. Example: I built kernel 2.6.34-rc4 on my dualcore machine and wanted to use it on the eee too but I forgot to save it and rebooted so it is lost. Not only the package but also the kernel tar and the patchset.

If there are several packages built I do cp /tmp/packerbuild*/**/*.xz ~/bla/ to be able to reuse them and when I have a big git I just do paker -G vlc-git-va and makepkg then (thats over 100 mb; I don't want to download this more often!)

I think an aur helper could do that for me or do I want packer to be something it does not want to be?

grogers3.14 · 2010-04-18 20:48:54

grogers3.14 wrote:

Could you add a check for whether the package is flagged out of date during an update? e.g
$ packer -Su --auronly
:: Synchronizing aur database...
 aur                                         23  23 [#####################] 100%
:: Warning: Package xxx is out of date
:: Starting full aur upgrade...
 local database is up to date
You already have a function to check if a package is out of date, and I think it would be really useful if it was used here.
EDIT: this patch adds that functionality

I've taken it one step further and included out of date warnings in the search results. Here are the all important times:

[packer]$ packer -Ss xorg-server >/dev/null #Get the xorg-server.search, so that internet makes no difference
[packer]$ time packer -Ss xorg-server >/dev/null

real    0m0.668s
user    0m0.180s
sys    0m0.220s
[packer]$ time ./packer-patched -Ss xorg-server >/dev/null

real    0m0.699s
user    0m0.217s
sys    0m0.200s

And a quick example

./packer-patched -Ss lxterminal
community/lxterminal 0.1.7-1 (lxde)
    VTE-based terminal emulator (part of LXDE)
aur/lxterminal-git 20100407-1 
    VTE-based terminal emulator (part of LXDE) 
aur/lxterminal-ru 0.1.4-1 Out of date
    VTE-based terminal emulator (part of LXDE) (Russian lang patch include)

Barely any difference in the times, and it is a useful feature in my opinion. Here is the patch, made against version 20100418-1. Note this includes both the search and the upgrade out of date warnings. I've tested it this time as well - I don't think my last one worked

Last edited by grogers3.14 (2010-04-18 21:00:51)

frigaut · 2010-04-19 17:00:19

Subject: packer does not honor dependencies order in PKGBUILD 'depends'

Hello,

I'm wondering if the following is a feature or a bug:

I am maintaining yorick (a data analysis interpreted language) and the yorick plugins in AUR. There are many plugins and to make it easier to install, I have created a yorick-all meta package, in the like of the gnome-extra meta package: i.e. it doesn't do anything but only has all the packages I want to install as dependencies. Some of the plugins (packages) depend on other, so the order in which the packags have to be installed is important. Here is the relevant lines in the yorick-all PKGBUILD:

# Maintainer: Francois Rigaut <frigaut@gmail.com>
pkgname=yorick-all
pkgver=2.1
pkgrel=2
pkgdesc="Meta package for yorick and all plugins"
arch=('i686' 'x86_64')
license=('BSD')
url="http://yorick.sourceforge.net"
groups=('science' 'yorick-all')
depends=('glibc' 'rlwrap' 'yorick-cvs' 'yorick-yutils' 'yorick-imutil' 'yorick-yao') (there are many others but I extracted a few one important for illustrating this post)
md5sum=()

build() {
  return 0
}

So it's important that yorick-cvs in installed first, and it's important for instance that yorick-yutils is installed before yorick-imutil, which itself should be installed before yorick-yao. packer does not seem to honor this order. It tries (and succeed I believe) to figure out all the dependencies, but it does not list them in the said order and thus end up with "missing dependencies" errors.

Is that a bug? Or a feature? how is pacman handling similar issues (I believe the packer philosophy is to adhere to pacman behavior, hence the question)?

Last edited by frigaut (2010-04-19 17:07:58)

bruenig · 2010-04-20 04:08:04

Bah, I have school!

JohannesSM64 · 2010-04-21 15:55:43

Here's a patch to ask for makepkg args, making packer more power user friendly:
http://paste.pocoo.org/show/204545/

bruenig · 2010-04-21 23:35:45

I find interactive prompts really obnoxious. If makepkg args are going to be implemented, they would need to be done so in a cli fashion, not through prompts.

X-dark · 2010-04-22 07:52:35

I agree with that.
I would be even more extreme. If you want to pass custom args to makepkg, just run it manually ...

JohannesSM64 · 2010-04-22 09:45:24

bruenig wrote:

I find interactive prompts really obnoxious. If makepkg args are going to be implemented, they would need to be done so in a cli fashion, not through prompts.

It already supports that, through the MAKEPKGARGS environment variable.

bruenig · 2010-04-23 21:10:52

Ah. So a solution already exists.

pickboy87 · 2010-04-23 21:20:50

bruenig wrote:

pickboy87 wrote:
Not sure if this is a bug or if I did something wrong, but whenever I install something or update something with packer it asks for the password for root access (which is fine), but EVERY TIME the first password attempt is 'wrong'. I have to enter it in twice before it lets me continue installing.
I thought it was a simple mistype the first couple of times, but I've gone slowly each time and it still asks me twice. Am I missing something?
I am unable to replicate this. So...

Sorry, no one responded for a while so I left this thread alone. Anyways, again, just tried packer with numerous things and it still asks for the password twice no matter what I do.

[nathan@linux_box ~]$ packer --auronly -Syu
:: Synchronizing aur database...
 aur                                         29  29 [---------------------] 100%
:: Starting full aur upgrade...

Aur Targets    (1): chromium-codecs-ffmpeg-nonfree-bin

Proceed with installation? [Y/n] y
--2010-04-23 16:13:32--  http://aur.archlinux.org/packages/chromium-codecs-ffmpeg-nonfree-bin/chromium-codecs-ffmpeg-nonfree-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... 200 OK
Length: 1324 (1.3K) [application/x-tgz]
Saving to: "chromium-codecs-ffmpeg-nonfree-bin.tar.gz"

100%[======================================>] 1,324       --.-K/s   in 0s      

2010-04-23 16:13:32 (136 MB/s) - "chromium-codecs-ffmpeg-nonfree-bin.tar.gz" saved [1324/1324]

Edit chromium-codecs-ffmpeg-nonfree-bin PKGBUILD with $EDITOR? [Y/n] n
Edit chromium-codecs-ffmpeg-nonfree-bin.install with $EDITOR? [Y/n] n
==> Making package: chromium-codecs-ffmpeg-nonfree-bin 45380-1 x86_64 (Fri Apr 23 16:13:35 CDT 2010)
==> Checking Runtime Dependencies...
==> Checking Buildtime Dependencies...
==> Retrieving Sources...
  -> Downloading chromium-codecs-ffmpeg-extra_0.5+svn20100422r45289+43984+45380-0ubuntu1~ucd1~karmic_amd64.deb...
--2010-04-23 16:13:35--  http://ppa.launchpad.net/chromium-daily/ppa/ubuntu/pool/main/c/chromium-codecs-ffmpeg/chromium-codecs-ffmpeg-extra_0.5+svn20100422r45289+43984+45380-0ubuntu1~ucd1~karmic_amd64.deb
Resolving ppa.launchpad.net... 91.189.90.217
Connecting to ppa.launchpad.net|91.189.90.217|:80... connected.
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK
Length: 594474 (581K) [application/x-debian-package]
Saving to: "chromium-codecs-ffmpeg-extra_0.5+svn20100422r45289+43984+45380-0ubuntu1~ucd1~karmic_amd64.deb.part"

100%[======================================>] 594,474      573K/s   in 1.0s    

2010-04-23 16:13:37 (573 KB/s) - "chromium-codecs-ffmpeg-extra_0.5+svn20100422r45289+43984+45380-0ubuntu1~ucd1~karmic_amd64.deb.part" saved [594474/594474]

==> Validating source files with md5sums...
    chromium-codecs-ffmpeg-extra_0.5+svn20100422r45289+43984+45380-0ubuntu1~ucd1~karmic_amd64.deb ... Passed
==> Extracting Sources...
==> Entering fakeroot environment...
==> Starting build()...
  -> Extracting files...
  -> Making it nice...
==> Tidying install...
  -> Purging other files...
  -> Compressing man and info pages...
  -> Stripping debugging symbols from binaries and libraries...
==> Creating package...
  -> Generating .PKGINFO file...
  -> Adding install script...
  -> Compressing package...
==> Leaving fakeroot environment.
==> Finished making: chromium-codecs-ffmpeg-nonfree-bin 45380-1 x86_64 (Fri Apr 23 16:13:38 CDT 2010)
Password: 
Password: 
loading package data...
checking dependencies...
(1/1) checking for file conflicts                   [---------------------] 100%
(1/1) upgrading chromium-codecs-ffmpeg-nonfree-bin  [---------------------] 100%
 local database is up to date

[nathan@linux_box ~]$ packer -Syu
Password: 
Password: 
:: Synchronizing package databases...
 core is up to date
 extra                    449.0K  880.7K/s 00:00:01 [---------------------] 100%
 community                373.1K  857.0K/s 00:00:00 [---------------------] 100%
:: Starting full system upgrade...
 local database is up to date
:: Synchronizing aur database...
 aur                                         29  29 [---------------------] 100%
:: Starting full aur upgrade...
 local database is up to date

Could it be fakeroot I'm having troubles with? It's just a minor annoyance so it's not _that_ big of a deal. Just curious as to why this happens or if there is a way around this.

Last edited by pickboy87 (2010-04-23 21:23:33)

magostin · 2010-05-06 09:02:46

Just a small request: when using colored output, would it be possible to respect the same settings as specified in /etc/pacman.d/color.conf instead of defining a new set of colors (COLORx)? This way, you could have a uniform coloring strategy between pacman and packer. ATM instead you have to change both /etc/pacman.d/color.conf and the COLORx variables in /usr/bin/packer, and most importantly every time you update packer you lose the color configuration.

Sharpeee · 2010-05-06 13:06:49

Hey. Very cool script, I'm using it all the time!

I just have one problem though. I don't use a password for my 'sudo' so the password prompt should never appear come up, but unfortunately it does! After this line

elif sudo -v &>/dev/null && sudo -l "$@" &>/dev/null; then

was introduced, packer keeps asking me for a password. When I run 'sudo -v' in a terminal, I don't get any output, which I think is the reason for the error.

# Edit #
If I change the code to

elif sudo -v &>/dev/null || sudo -l "$@" &>/dev/null; then

it works wonders!

Last edited by Sharpeee (2010-05-06 13:12:23)

brendan · 2010-05-06 13:20:11

I found a small possible bug. If you do a packer -Syu and update pacman because that's what it wants to do first, it doesnt close and stop the AUR upgrades. Surely it should stop and make you start again upgrading repo's before AUR packages?

[~]$ sudo packer -Syu
Password: 
:: Synchronising package databases...
 core                      36.1K  198.1K/s 00:00:00 [###################################################] 100%
 extra                    449.3K 1013.3K/s 00:00:00 [###################################################] 100%
 community                372.6K  595.6K/s 00:00:01 [###################################################] 100%
 archlinuxfr                9.7K  244.2K/s 00:00:00 [###################################################] 100%
:: The following packages should be upgraded first :
    pacman  
:: Do you want to cancel the current operation
:: and upgrade these packages now? [Y/n] Y

resolving dependencies...
looking for inter-conflicts...

Targets (1): pacman-3.3.3-5  

Total Download Size:    0.62 MB
Total Installed Size:   2.19 MB

Proceed with installation? [Y/n] Y
:: Retrieving packages from core...
 pacman-3.3.3-5-x86_64    637.6K 1154.3K/s 00:00:01 [###################################################] 100%
checking package integrity...
(1/1) checking for file conflicts                   [###################################################] 100%
(1/1) upgrading pacman                              [###################################################] 100%
warning: /etc/makepkg.conf installed as /etc/makepkg.conf.pacnew
:: Synchronizing aur database...
 aur                                         32  32 [###################################################] 100%
:: Starting full aur upgrade...

Aur Targets    (6): boxee-source eclipse-wtp-wst inxi kernel26-rc libx86emu mkinitcpio-btrfs

Proceed with installation? [Y/n] n

brendan · 2010-05-09 14:08:42

another bug I found was while installing the package albumart. The package pil has been renamed python-imaging, while yaourt was able to find this information packer wasn't.

grogers3.14 · 2010-05-09 16:59:18

Are you planning to add my patch I mentioned here? It is a useful feature.

bruenig · 2010-05-10 00:14:51

I fixed the urlencode problems I think.

frigaut · 2010-05-19 15:35:47

packer seems to have problem resolving packages names with ++ at the end.

packer -Ss compiz-core++

only leads the non++ compiz-core package, even though compiz-core++ exist in AUR ( http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=35680 )

Packer is not the only one having this problem though. yaourt seems to fall under the same category.

Trying to escape the "+" or putting the package name between quotes does not solve the problem.

andrewd18 · 2010-05-19 15:55:04

First off, I love packer. It does exactly what I want without getting in my way. You've done an excellent job on it. Thank you for your time.

I've downloaded the Humble Indie Bundle files to my system, but whenever I try to install one of the HB packages, it fails. I realize I can do this manually via makepkg, but I'd rather use packer. Where do I need to put the downloaded files in order for packer to pick them up?

I've tried /var/cache/pacman/pkg as well as what I expect to be the appropriate locations in /tmp/packerbuild-1000 and /tmp/packertmp-1000/, but I still get this error:

[andrew@Cydonia ~]$ packer -S aquaria-hb_version

Aur Targets    (1): aquaria-hb_version

Proceed with installation? [Y/n] y     
Edit aquaria-hb_version PKGBUILD with $EDITOR? [Y/n] n
Edit aquaria.install with $EDITOR? [Y/n] n
==> Making package: aquaria-hb_version 1.1.3-1 x86_64 (Wed May 19 10:48:08 CDT 2010)
==> Checking Runtime Dependencies...
==> Checking Buildtime Dependencies...
==> Retrieving Sources...
==> ERROR: aquaria-lnx-humble-bundle.mojo.run was not found in the build directory and is not a URL.

Thanks,

~~ Andrew

bruenig · 2010-05-25 21:18:03

frigaut, I am pretty sure I fixed that...

Arch Linux

#376 2010-04-12 07:54:05

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

#377 2010-04-12 08:37:43

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

#378 2010-04-12 14:38:00

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

#379 2010-04-12 15:01:21

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

#380 2010-04-12 23:18:58

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

#381 2010-04-15 04:23:15

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

#382 2010-04-17 21:27:44

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

#383 2010-04-18 20:48:54

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

#384 2010-04-19 17:00:19

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

#385 2010-04-20 04:08:04

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

#386 2010-04-21 15:55:43

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

#387 2010-04-21 23:35:45

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

#388 2010-04-22 07:52:35

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

#389 2010-04-22 09:45:24

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

#390 2010-04-23 21:10:52

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

#391 2010-04-23 21:20:50

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

#392 2010-05-06 09:02:46

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

#393 2010-05-06 13:06:49

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

#394 2010-05-06 13:20:11

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

#395 2010-05-09 14:08:42

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

#396 2010-05-09 16:59:18

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

#397 2010-05-10 00:14:51

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

#398 2010-05-19 15:35:47

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

#399 2010-05-19 15:55:04

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

#400 2010-05-25 21:18:03

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

Board footer