Curious: has ABS always been what it is right now?

bhobbit · 2010-01-26 07:23:50

I have seen lots of pages on the Arch wiki that seem to misuse the term "ABS". For example, an article might be called "Building packages with ABS" and then proceed to explain how to write your own PKGBUILD and create a package with makepkg. Is this because makepkg was called ABS in the past or something like that?

ngoonee · 2010-01-26 08:47:41

ABS = Arch Build System. Can refer both to the actual app (abs) which allows to download all current PKGBUILDs as well as the system where you use makepkg to create a package. makepkg is just the executable for making a package, the system is called the Arch Build System.

bhobbit · 2010-01-26 09:19:25

So ABS can be used as an umbrella term, I see. A while ago, before I knew it how to build packages, it confused the hell out of me. It still does actually - I have to read the whole article to see what it's really about, the app or the system.

Here is an actual example from Kernel Compilation article on the wiki [1]:

There are a few ways to use ABS to automate the process of building a customized kernel. Currently there is no universal way to do this and you can pick which way works best for your build needs.

Notice how the article omits 'the' in front of ABS, which for me only enforces the impression that the article refers to the app. Further in the article, 'abs' (lowercase) is used, while it still refers to the system, not the app. Do you also think it would be much, much clearer if it said something like following?

You can also build a custom kernel by creating an Arch package. To do so, you would have to write a PKBUILD file to use with makepkg. You can also use abs to get the PKGBUILD used to build the kernel package in Arch's official repository.

Or am I just being too nitpicky?

[1] http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Kernel_Compilation

ngoonee · 2010-01-27 03:24:06

Hmm, the original looks just fine to me though. Perhaps bring it up in the Wiki discussion forum?

bhobbit · 2010-01-27 04:59:21

Yeah, I couldn't decide at first whether this post should go to the Wiki discussion forum or here. Perhaps, a moderator could move it?

ngoonee · 2010-01-27 07:56:19

bhobbit wrote:

Yeah, I couldn't decide at first whether this post should go to the Wiki discussion forum or here. Perhaps, a moderator could move it?

Find one and pm him

tomk · 2010-01-27 08:05:21

Do you not think the context helps? If someone is talking about abs building something, they're talking about the system - if the reference is about retrieving build files, it's the app.

Re the wiki, a convention of upper-case for the system and lower-case for the app might help - if people stick to it, that is.

tomk · 2010-01-27 08:16:51

Moved to Forum and Wiki discussion.

Allan · 2010-01-27 09:16:17

See also: http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/15452

res · 2010-01-27 09:22:42

I can't tell if the 'patches welcome' is sarcastic or not.

Are those usr/bin/abs features wanted or no?

Allan · 2010-01-27 09:32:45

Not sarcastic. Just I have many other things to do and that is low on my priority list.

drcouzelis · 2010-01-27 17:59:26

When I read the "Arch Build System" page on the wiki when I was learning Arch I remember being extremely confused. Now that I finally "get it", I went back to read that page again again. I couldn't agree with bhobbit more. I find it terribly confusing!

I'm ready and willing to dive into the wiki page and make some easy and simple cleanups. But before I do, is there a reason why "Arch Build System" is capitalized? I won't change it for now, but it just seems unnecessary to have a giant umbrella term that is not really defined anywhere that I can find. It seems like you could just as well say "Arch build system".

It reminds me of all the confusion about what the heck ".net" and "Java" really are. (the "Java Desktop System" is... GNOME??)

Last edited by drcouzelis (2010-01-27 17:59:57)

bhobbit · 2010-01-28 01:55:18

tomk: Sure, the context helps to some extent, but only after you already firmly know the set of tools and actions to build packages. If you're just getting started, you're hosed. The convention you speak of would certainly improve things, but I haven't found even the slightest hint that such convention exists.

Allan: Wow, so there is actually one more meaning to the term ABS than I realized: 1) as in the Arch Build System, the whole caboodle of tools to build packages 2) ABS as in the script to fetch the tree of PKGBUILDs 3) ABS as in the tree of PKGBUILDs itself.

The trend so far: some people think the broad usage of the term ABS is fine, some find it confusing, but nobody is against changing usage of the term in the wiki to something more descriptive. On one hand it's nice that there is a generic term for the system as a whole, but on the other it gets abused in the wiki when people simply say "use ABS" without specifying what they mean exactly. Which makes users who are just getting started think that they should use the script or the tree.

I think there should be a wiki article about the confusion itself :) Something in the vein of "what they say and what they mean":

What they say: "Use ABS to create a custom build of a package".
What they mean: "You may run the abs script to fetch the tree of PKBUILDs for packages in the official repositories and use any PKGBUILD from the tree as a starting point for your custom build."

pointone · 2010-01-28 02:49:00

Personally, I see no issues with current usage. "Use ABS" refers to the process of building and packaging software from source code using PKGBUILDs. Sometimes those PKGBUILDs are retrieved using the "abs" tool, sometimes from the AUR, but always built using the Arch Build System, which involves invoking makepkg and pacman.

Is there any time where you are directed to fetch a PKGBUILD using abs but not to build the resulting package?

I believe this is described clearly in the Arch Build System article, but am not opposed to changes if they improve clarity. I am generally opposed to the elimination of the "umbrella" term, though.

drcouzelis · 2010-02-18 21:46:22

I started editing the wiki page for the ABS and became VERY confused. So, I made a new page: http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Int … to_the_ABS

It is extremely simple (on purpose). I don't think I wrote anything blasphemous about the ABS or anything.

bhobbit · 2010-02-18 22:10:04

drcouzelis: Looks good. I would call it something else though - like ABS FAQ - and link to it from http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_Build_System The reason would be that fairly recently there were several pages describing building packages in Arch, all with pretty much the same info, and I was one of the people who had to reconcile them.

So I'd make sure that people understand that this page is like a sub-section of the main ABS article. Otherwise I'm afraid that people will start duplicating info once again.

computron · 2010-02-18 22:21:20

The ABS stuff on the Wiki is definitely confusing. I've used Arch on and off, and ABS makes sense to me now (I think), but the wiki page definitely isn't the greatest description.

bhobbit · 2010-02-18 22:24:29

To add to the previous discussion, I looked at the Arch Build System page and stumbled upon a sentence which I imagine can contribute to confusion of users just getting started with ABS:

ABS is the specialized Arch tool for compiling source into an installable .pkg.tar.gz package.

ABS is not a tool! abs, the utility that fetches PKGBUILDs is a tool. ABS is a collection of tools.

Not bitching, just thinking out loud Already corrected that.

drcouzelis · 2010-02-18 22:24:32

bhobbit wrote:

drcouzelis: Looks good. I would call it something else though - like ABS FAQ - and link to it from http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_Build_System The reason would be that fairly recently there were several pages describing building packages in Arch, all with pretty much the same info, and I was one of the people who had to reconcile them.
So I'd make sure that people understand that this page is like a sub-section of the main ABS article. Otherwise I'm afraid that people will start duplicating info once again.

Done and done! Thanks for the input. http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/ABS_FAQ

computron wrote:

The ABS stuff on the Wiki is definitely confusing. I've used Arch on and off, and ABS makes sense to me now (I think), but the wiki page definitely isn't the greatest description.

How does the ABS FAQ look? Feel free to make changes.

Arch Linux

#1 2010-01-26 07:23:50

Curious: has ABS always been what it is right now?

#2 2010-01-26 08:47:41

Re: Curious: has ABS always been what it is right now?

#3 2010-01-26 09:19:25

Re: Curious: has ABS always been what it is right now?

#4 2010-01-27 03:24:06

Re: Curious: has ABS always been what it is right now?

#5 2010-01-27 04:59:21

Re: Curious: has ABS always been what it is right now?

#6 2010-01-27 07:56:19

Re: Curious: has ABS always been what it is right now?

#7 2010-01-27 08:05:21

Re: Curious: has ABS always been what it is right now?

#8 2010-01-27 08:16:51

Re: Curious: has ABS always been what it is right now?

#9 2010-01-27 09:16:17

Re: Curious: has ABS always been what it is right now?

#10 2010-01-27 09:22:42

Re: Curious: has ABS always been what it is right now?

#11 2010-01-27 09:32:45

Re: Curious: has ABS always been what it is right now?

#12 2010-01-27 17:59:26

Re: Curious: has ABS always been what it is right now?

#13 2010-01-28 01:55:18

Re: Curious: has ABS always been what it is right now?

#14 2010-01-28 02:49:00

Re: Curious: has ABS always been what it is right now?

#15 2010-02-18 21:46:22

Re: Curious: has ABS always been what it is right now?

#16 2010-02-18 22:10:04

Re: Curious: has ABS always been what it is right now?

#17 2010-02-18 22:21:20

Re: Curious: has ABS always been what it is right now?

#18 2010-02-18 22:24:29

Re: Curious: has ABS always been what it is right now?

#19 2010-02-18 22:24:32

Re: Curious: has ABS always been what it is right now?

Board footer