Building a package requires 200mb downloads?

snovik · 2012-05-14 21:19:17

I am new to arch and was trying today to build a package from AUR. After some struggles I managed to start makepkg -s without any errors. But then I was offered to download about 200mb of dependencies. In the documentation it was written that these dependencies are required only to build the package. But this is something what I am definitely reluctant to do.

Why is it normal to download what I generally do not need? Or I shall then remove the downloaded packages? What shall I do?

jasonwryan · 2012-05-14 21:20:59

...and the package name is?

snovik · 2012-05-14 21:21:31

docky

/dev/zero · 2012-05-14 21:28:13

Docky's installation page lists all the dependencies required to build from source. I'm not sure what the problem is? If you're not happy with the package you could either not use it or get involved in docky development?

snovik · 2012-05-14 21:34:11

yes I saw these and got confused. As I said I am new to arch and need to go through many circles until i understand it.

re docky I guess there is no way around. because installing a pre-compiled package from user community is not the arch way, right?

Last edited by snovik (2012-05-14 21:34:59)

/dev/zero · 2012-05-14 21:41:20

snovik wrote:

installing a pre-compiled package from user community is not the arch way, right?

Using packages from AUR is quite within the Arch Way. If you want to use docky, it would be best for you to use a PKGBUILD such as the one available from the AUR. If you don't want to keep the build deps after, you can uninstall them. However, you won't be able to avoid the initial 200Mb download.

Last edited by /dev/zero (2012-05-14 21:42:23)

snovik · 2012-05-14 21:45:38

ok. I guess the reason for download is c# in which docky is written. are there many other case of similar instances? i mean there are zillions of languages out there. is it common to download lots of stuff to compile user packages?

karol · 2012-05-14 22:09:42

snovik wrote:

are there many other case of similar instances? i mean there are zillions of languages out there. is it common to download lots of stuff to compile user packages?

Yes.

Alternatively, you can check https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Un … positories for prebuilt packages.
ayatana repo seems to have docky 2.1.3-4

Trilby · 2012-05-14 22:10:03

As with most answers: it depends.

IMHO, C# is rare in the open soure *nix ecosystem. The normal gcc stuff (ie base-devel) is almost always sufficient*. Xmonad requires the GHC which is a bit of a monster, but such packages are very few and very far between in my experience.

Edit: *=with some additions which tend to be much smaller.

Last edited by Trilby (2012-05-14 22:11:00)

Xyne · 2012-05-14 23:03:50

snovik wrote:

because installing a pre-compiled package from user community is not the arch way, right?

What do you mean by "user community"? If you mean the "community" repository, then it is very much the Arch Way to use it. The Arch Way is many things, one of which is keeping it simple. If you need a package and it's available through pacman, then use pacman.

If you are going to build your own packages (e.g. with the Arch Build System (ABS), the AUR, or by creating your own PKGBUILDs*), then you should install the "base-devel" group with "pacman -S base-devel".

Some packages will have additional "makedepends", which are packages required to build the package, but not to run it. If you run "makepkg -irs" then it will download the necessary makedepends, build the package, and then remove the makedepends that are no longer needed after installing the package. Read the makepkg man page with "man makepkg" to learn about what you can do with makepkg.

One other caveat... be careful when using makepkg. Inspect the PKGBUILD yourself to make sure that there's no malicious code in there or any associated install scripts or other code. The only time I would not check a PKGBUILD is when it came straight from ABS or from someone that I trust on the AUR.

* This is the recommended way to install anything that isn't already packaged. You should then share your PKGBUILD with others on the AUR and try to improve it.

snovik · 2012-05-15 06:54:20

karol, I might try your solution!

Xyne, yes, my language is a bit sloppy still with all new terminology.

Thanks everybody for help! I made another step forward on the Arch way!

Awebb · 2012-05-15 07:12:19

I used to be a gnome-do user (docky was once part of gnome-do). That was perfectly fine as long I used Gnome, but now under more minimal circumstances, it pulls in half of Gnome and all that mono stuff. Take xmonad as another example: It needs haskell. While xmonad itself downloads <1MB and installs to not much >5MB, the whole download will be >60MB installing to >430MB on my machine. This is funny, as I don't know any haskell and xmonad is the only program in the normal repos that uses haskel (or: that depends on ghc, to be precise). The same goes for KDE applications, they will pull in half of KDE, because the developers made them for KDE and they did not need to think about dependencies, as every lib they need will be installed on every KDE desktop.

ANOKNUSA · 2012-05-15 15:14:27

Awebb's got it right: Many packages built against major desktop environments will pull in packages from those environments to install and run properly. In Docky's case, it's built using Mono, so that's gonna pull in some extra GNOME stuff.

However, for future reference: take a look at the PKGBUILD for what you want built (you should always do this anyway), and look for the line reading makedepends=. These are packages required to build--but not run--the program. You can list these orphaned packages with the command "pacman -Qdt," and remove them after building the AUR package if you think they're unnecessary.

If you're coming from, say, Ubuntu or Mint or Elementary, you'll find that those communities have different definitions of "Lightweight" and "Minimal" than many of us do here. That might be part of your confusion: Docky (like its offspring, Plank) may be lightweight and minimal in appearance, but under the hood it's not.

snovik · 2012-05-15 19:34:58

yes, ANOKNUSA, you are right. I tried the ayatana repo suggested by karol and docky needs 150mb of installation to run. But I got used to docky on ubuntu so much that can not really imagine my life without it. Is there something similar but *lightweight*?

Another stupid question: the docky installation does not have the .install file but has a install-sh script. Is it supposed to be the same? Sorry for this super dummy question. But googling such things is an overkill

ngoonee · 2012-05-16 00:09:18

snovik wrote:

yes, ANOKNUSA, you are right. I tried the ayatana repo suggested by karol and docky needs 150mb of installation to run. But I got used to docky on ubuntu so much that can not really imagine my life without it. Is there something similar but *lightweight*?
Another stupid question: the docky installation does not have the .install file but has a install-sh script. Is it supposed to be the same? Sorry for this super dummy question. But googling such things is an overkill

If you can't be bothered, I don't see why anyone else should bother on your behalf.

Closing - let me know if you've bothered doing your minimal responsibility then we'll discuss re-opening.

Arch Linux

#1 2012-05-14 21:19:17

Building a package requires 200mb downloads?

#2 2012-05-14 21:20:59

Re: Building a package requires 200mb downloads?

#3 2012-05-14 21:21:31

Re: Building a package requires 200mb downloads?

#4 2012-05-14 21:28:13

Re: Building a package requires 200mb downloads?

#5 2012-05-14 21:34:11

Re: Building a package requires 200mb downloads?

#6 2012-05-14 21:41:20

Re: Building a package requires 200mb downloads?

#7 2012-05-14 21:45:38

Re: Building a package requires 200mb downloads?

#8 2012-05-14 22:09:42

Re: Building a package requires 200mb downloads?

#9 2012-05-14 22:10:03

Re: Building a package requires 200mb downloads?

#10 2012-05-14 23:03:50

Re: Building a package requires 200mb downloads?

#11 2012-05-15 06:54:20

Re: Building a package requires 200mb downloads?

#12 2012-05-15 07:12:19

Re: Building a package requires 200mb downloads?

#13 2012-05-15 15:14:27

Re: Building a package requires 200mb downloads?

#14 2012-05-15 19:34:58

Re: Building a package requires 200mb downloads?

#15 2012-05-16 00:09:18

Re: Building a package requires 200mb downloads?

Board footer