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

falconindy · 2010-12-11 18:11:36

It's because the AUR is back to being SSL. Not sure if this is intended or not (sounds like it isn't). Add the -L flag to curl operations or replace http with https.

grondinm · 2010-12-11 18:30:57

good stuff thank you....all seems to work now after changing http to https in packer.

mhertz · 2010-12-12 02:49:57

Thanks alot for packer, bruenig!

Btw, in the aur-packer entry bruening wrote as first comment:

For the lazy:
wget "https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/pack … r/PKGBUILD" ; makepkg -fic

This dosen't work and should instead be:

wget --no-check-certificate "https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/packer/packer/PKGBUILD" ; makepkg -fics --holdver

falconindy · 2010-12-12 03:58:41

Nuts to that. Make packer install itself.

curl https://github.com/bruenig/packer/blob/master/packer > /tmp/packer;/tmp/packer -S packer

mhertz · 2010-12-12 04:08:21

Nice! Anyway dosen't there miss a ;chmod +x /tmp/packer; in between (don't know if it needs sudo))

Btw, i had a clean install(image restore) with just the base/base-devel and which didn't includes curl, so in such circumstances then the "wget/makepkg -s" method is prefferable imho...

Last edited by mhertz (2010-12-12 04:10:06)

X-dark · 2010-12-13 23:34:01

mhertz wrote:

Nice! Anyway dosen't there miss a ;chmod +x /tmp/packer; in between (don't know if it needs sudo))
Btw, i had a clean install(image restore) with just the base/base-devel and which didn't includes curl, so in such circumstances then the "wget/makepkg -s" method is prefferable imho...

Well, curl is a packer dependency anyway...

mhertz · 2010-12-14 08:22:10

Obviously curl is a packer dep, but this is about installing packer fastest in a "lazy" way, as the author noted, and where curl maybe isnt installed as it's not a base/base-devel or core arch package, but wget is... Else the commandline needs to check for curl and conditionally install it first, but by using wget/makepkg -s, then curl is autoinstalled if not available......

falconindy · 2010-12-14 13:58:33

Then use wget in place of it and move on. I personally always have curl installed (and much prefer it over wget) because it's a dependency of git.

syne · 2011-01-14 12:44:12

I'm sorry that i haven't read the whole thread. I turned to packer because it recognised git and svn pkgs even if they hadn't -git or -svn at the end of their name (yaourt doesn't).
What i found inconvenient though was that when updating devel pkgs, packer installs the dependencies from official repos first and then starts on the aur upgrade. Is there some way to prevent that from happening? Esp now when there are so many pkgs still out there that have python as a dep instead of python2. I'd hate to uninstall python after every upgrade.
thanks!

ijanos · 2011-01-14 13:16:35

syne wrote:

I'm sorry that i haven't read the whole thread. I turned to packer because it recognised git and svn pkgs even if they hadn't -git or -svn at the end of their name (yaourt doesn't).
What i found inconvenient though was that when updating devel pkgs, packer installs the dependencies from official repos first and then starts on the aur upgrade. Is there some way to prevent that from happening? Esp now when there are so many pkgs still out there that have python as a dep instead of python2. I'd hate to uninstall python after every upgrade.
thanks!

As a workaround I think you can poke the maintainers to fix their PKGBUILDs.

frigaut · 2011-01-14 15:35:08

ijanos wrote:

syne wrote:
I'm sorry that i haven't read the whole thread. I turned to packer because it recognised git and svn pkgs even if they hadn't -git or -svn at the end of their name (yaourt doesn't).
What i found inconvenient though was that when updating devel pkgs, packer installs the dependencies from official repos first and then starts on the aur upgrade. Is there some way to prevent that from happening? Esp now when there are so many pkgs still out there that have python as a dep instead of python2. I'd hate to uninstall python after every upgrade.
thanks!
As a workaround I think you can poke the maintainers to fix their PKGBUILDs.

yeah, but it would be awfully convenient to have a packer option "ignore dependencies'.

X-dark · 2011-01-14 15:51:39

frigaut wrote:

ijanos wrote:
syne wrote:
I'm sorry that i haven't read the whole thread. I turned to packer because it recognised git and svn pkgs even if they hadn't -git or -svn at the end of their name (yaourt doesn't).
What i found inconvenient though was that when updating devel pkgs, packer installs the dependencies from official repos first and then starts on the aur upgrade. Is there some way to prevent that from happening? Esp now when there are so many pkgs still out there that have python as a dep instead of python2. I'd hate to uninstall python after every upgrade.
thanks!
As a workaround I think you can poke the maintainers to fix their PKGBUILDs.
yeah, but it would be awfully convenient to have a packer option "ignore dependencies'.

It's only one character to add when you review the PKGBUILD.

Last edited by X-dark (2011-01-14 15:53:38)

syne · 2011-01-14 16:37:59

ijanos wrote:

syne wrote:
I'm sorry that i haven't read the whole thread. I turned to packer because it recognised git and svn pkgs even if they hadn't -git or -svn at the end of their name (yaourt doesn't).
What i found inconvenient though was that when updating devel pkgs, packer installs the dependencies from official repos first and then starts on the aur upgrade. Is there some way to prevent that from happening? Esp now when there are so many pkgs still out there that have python as a dep instead of python2. I'd hate to uninstall python after every upgrade.
thanks!
As a workaround I think you can poke the maintainers to fix their PKGBUILDs.

oh i did that ages ago:D
but, it's not that big of a problem, i can manage with yaourt until then easily..

jck · 2011-01-21 22:07:38

I patched packer to show votes, [installed] and [out of date]

Here is the patch:

@@ -644,6 +644,9 @@
   IFS=$'\n'
   aurname=( $(grep -F '"Name":"' "$parsefile" | cut -d '"' -f 4) )
   version=( $(grep -F '"Version":"' "$parsefile" | cut -d '"' -f 4) )
+  votes=( $(grep -F '"NumVotes":"' "$parsefile" | cut -d '"' -f 4) )
+  outofdate=( $(grep -F '"OutOfDate":"' "$parsefile" | cut -d '"' -f 4) )
+  
   if ! [[ $quiet ]]; then
     description=( $(grep -F '"Description":"' "$parsefile" | sed -e 's/^"Description":"//' -e 's/"$/ /') )
   fi
@@ -657,7 +660,14 @@
       done
     else
       for ((i=0 ; i<$aurtotal ; i++)); do
-        echo -e "${COLOR3}aur/${COLOR1}${aurname[$i]} ${COLOR2}${version[$i]}${ENDCOLOR}\n    ${description[$i]}"
+        installed="";existsinlocal "${aurname[$i]}" && installed=\[Installed\]
+        if [ ${outofdate[$i]} -eq 0 ]
+        then
+          outofdat=""
+        else
+          outofdat="[Out of date]"
+        fi
+        echo -e "${COLOR3}aur/${COLOR1}${aurname[$i]} ${COLOR2}${version[$i]} ${installed} ${COLOR6}(${votes[$i]}) ${COLOR7}${outofdat} ${ENDCOLOR}\n    ${description[$i]}"
       done
     fi
   else
@@ -670,7 +680,14 @@
     else
       for ((i=$pactotal ; i<$alltotal ; i++)); do
         elem="$(($i-$pactotal))"
-        echo -e "$i ${COLOR3}aur/${COLOR1}${aurname[$elem]} ${COLOR2}${version[$elem]}${ENDCOLOR}\n    ${description[$elem]}"
+    installed="";existsinlocal "${aurname[$elem]}" && installed=\[Installed\]
+        if [ ${outofdate[$elem]} -eq 0 ]
+        then
+          outofdat=""
+        else
+          outofdat="[Out of date]"
+        fi
+        echo -e "$i ${COLOR3}aur/${COLOR1}${aurname[$elem]} ${COLOR2}${version[$elem]} ${installed} ${COLOR6}(${votes[$elem]}) ${COLOR7}${outofdat}${ENDCOLOR}   \n    ${description[$elem]}"
       done
     fi
   fi

anonymous_user · 2011-01-22 06:19:37

Any chance to see package sizes and total size when installing? At least for the repo packages.

Last edited by anonymous_user (2011-01-22 06:20:04)

Nihathrael · 2011-01-23 11:12:19

I'm getting:

Targets (1): ghostscript-9.00-4

Total Download Size:    10.70 MB
Total Installed Size:   45.51 MB

Or do you want to display that on a per package basis?

anonymous_user · 2011-01-23 16:33:15

Ok I should have been more specific. If you are installing a package from the main repo then packer will show the sizes like pacman does. However if you are installing a package from the AUR and it has repo package dependencies, packer will not show their sizes.

Just to be sure, I am not asking packer to show the sizes for AUR packages. I know that is not possible.

Last edited by anonymous_user (2011-01-23 16:34:09)

kittykatt · 2011-01-23 18:03:49

I'm working on patching packer to show the "OutOfDate" status in the search results instead of when you actually go to download something. I'll post a patch here when it's good to go...

ijanos · 2011-01-23 19:05:44

kittykatt wrote:

I'm working on patching packer to show the "OutOfDate" status in the search results instead of when you actually go to download something. I'll post a patch here when it's good to go...

You mean to behave like this? http://www.reddit.com/r/archlinux/comme … d_and_out/

kittykatt · 2011-01-24 00:48:57

ijanos wrote:

kittykatt wrote:
I'm working on patching packer to show the "OutOfDate" status in the search results instead of when you actually go to download something. I'll post a patch here when it's good to go...
You mean to behave like this? http://www.reddit.com/r/archlinux/comme … d_and_out/

Well...yeah. Totally was not aware that patch existed. >_> I'll patch my personal version with that and see if I like the patch I just made or that one better. :B

I'll also be hosting my own version of packer at SilverIRC's GIT repository and it will include any changes that I make to packer over time. Right now the only change is that it prints "(Out of Date!)" next to a search result if it does happen to be flagged out of date.

EDIT: Wow, the patch about this was done like 2-3 posts above mine. Serious stupidity on my part. Thanks for pointing that out to me.

Last edited by kittykatt (2011-01-24 00:56:32)

X-dark · 2011-02-24 14:14:20

Is anyone using packer with powerpill in an efficient way? I could use bauerbill but I find it slow for aur related operations.

I did see these posts:
https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php … 39#p705739
https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php … 95#p710695

But the first solution does not works and the second one is reported to not work either.

mhertz · 2011-02-27 22:12:26

I cannot upgrade devel packages with packer anymore. If running e.g. 'packer -S jumanji-git', then there's no problem, but with 'packer -Syu --devel' then I just get the message "Local database is up to date" and packer quits instead of reinstalling every package using a subversion-control-system...

Btw, I haven't checked aurget out yet, to see if the problem remains there also, but maybe the following aurget commit comment from pbrisbin yesterday is related? :

"added todo:s, need to fix for new url scheme, eek!"

Thanks in advance!

Edit: Hmm, aurget works somewhat i.e. it does upgrade jumanji-git, but it fails to update packer when running 'aurget -Syu --devel'

Edit2: Sorry, aurget does work as expected! I didn't know untill know that aurget just checks the package name for known subversion-control-systems and hence wouldn't auto-update packer as that dosen't have 'git' in it's name, whereas packer does the more thourogh method of searching through the actual pkgbuild files for known subversion-control-system vars i.e. '_gitroot' etc...

Last edited by mhertz (2011-02-27 22:52:28)

mhertz · 2011-02-28 09:11:07

Could someone please test and see if they have the same issue as me and report it here please, thanks. I'm beginning to be a little affraid about there being something wrong only on my end(as e.g. aurget works fine and as none has reported this on this thread besides me).

Well, if it is a common issue(which I believe it is, but just wanted to be 100% sure), then I can see juster made the following issue report yesterday:

PKGBUILD URL has changed on the AUR
0 comments Created 1 day ago by juster
The AUR has changed the location of the PKGBUILD on the website. Previously it was /packages/name/name/PKGBUILD. The new location is /packages/name/PKGBUILD. Packages uploaded before the change have both but packages uploaded after the change have only the new URL.

However, the packages that i'm trying to update are submitted long before that change(jumanji-git and packer), which seems to indicate that there shouldn't be an issue with that then?

DasFox · 2011-03-02 05:54:39

bruenig thanks for packer a really nice script, fast and light weight, but the first time I ran it, it would not pull down the first AUR dependency and compile it.

I tried to install foobnix;

'packer -S foobnix'

python-keybinder was the one it complained about saying that foobnix could not be installed because a dependancy could not be met.

All though It automatically grabbed everything in pacman repos, but as soon as it started to go for this first AUR dependency it died.

So then I thought let me run it over and I typed again;

'packer -S foobnix'

Then it started to download and compile it.

So not sure what's wrong here, but packer is having problems getting dependencies out of AUR, hope you can figure it out...

THANKS

mhertz · 2011-03-02 08:23:06

@DasFox

Hi there! I unfortunetly don't know anything about your issue, and we must wait untill bruenig returns, but I would like to ask you if you would kindly do me a favor and try to run 'packer -Syu --devel' on a fully updated system, and see if packer does update(reinstall) anything? Even if you don't have any devel packages installed from aur, then it should atleast update packer itself which is a devel package also...

Thanks in advance!

Edit: I've just got my notebook back from repair and i then runned 'packer -Syu --devel' on that and saw that the issue is the same there as on my stationary system, so it should be a packer issue then... (Doh! I could just have made a VM and tested in before that)

Edit2: Cool! bruenig has comed to the rescue again and made a commit that fixes the new AUR url scheme, so manually run 'packer -S packer' and everything is fine again! Thanks alot bruenig, you rock!

Last edited by mhertz (2011-03-02 18:29:11)

Arch Linux

#451 2010-12-11 18:11:36

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

#452 2010-12-11 18:30:57

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

#453 2010-12-12 02:49:57

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

#454 2010-12-12 03:58:41

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

#455 2010-12-12 04:08:21

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

#456 2010-12-13 23:34:01

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

#457 2010-12-14 08:22:10

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

#458 2010-12-14 13:58:33

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

#459 2011-01-14 12:44:12

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

#460 2011-01-14 13:16:35

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

#461 2011-01-14 15:35:08

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

#462 2011-01-14 15:51:39

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

#463 2011-01-14 16:37:59

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

#464 2011-01-21 22:07:38

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

#465 2011-01-22 06:19:37

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

#466 2011-01-23 11:12:19

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

#467 2011-01-23 16:33:15

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

#468 2011-01-23 18:03:49

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

#469 2011-01-23 19:05:44

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

#470 2011-01-24 00:48:57

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

#471 2011-02-24 14:14:20

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

#472 2011-02-27 22:12:26

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

#473 2011-02-28 09:11:07

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

#474 2011-03-02 05:54:39

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

#475 2011-03-02 08:23:06

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

Board footer