Possible suggestion..

postlogic · 2006-02-09 13:12:35

I'm not sure if this has already been done, but I was thinking of how useful it would be with a checkinstall-like feature to pacman or makepkg.

I know several new users who struggle with, or don't have time for the ABS, so why not have the ability to do a simple ./configure, make, make install, which is also tracked by pacman, so you can pacman -R <package> it afterwards?

It doesn't have to create a package or anything, just add the necessary info to it's database, so it can be removed later. Nothing more.

It's just an idea, though :-)

Thanks!

Mr Green · 2006-02-09 13:22:43

I know several new users who struggle with, or don't have time for the ABS,

:shock:

One of the best features of Arch IMO ....

Repeat after me 'ABS is my friend' ....

ABS allows you to build custom packges from repros... (adding features etc...)

& of course pacman can still track the package (more to the point!)

AUR has overshadowed ABS a little, maybe thats whats putting new users off ....

after all aurbuild is a great tool ;-)

please spare some time to learn ABS you will be rewarded

postlogic · 2006-02-09 13:43:21

Of course, I have no trouble with it, I was just thinking how nice it would be for people who don't have time to create a PKGBUILD for a package which isn't in any repos or AUR.

Using ABS is -always- the best way to go if you want to compile and install a program. But for a totally new user, coming from, say, Slackware, it -is- nice to have the option.

ABS is my friend.
ABS is my friend.
ABS is my friend.
:-o

Mr Green · 2006-02-09 14:03:41

Now I understand what you are saying, of course creating a PKGBUILD is not that easy but there is plenty of help (forum irc!!) looking at PKGBUILDs in ABS helps

no making packages for the new user is not that easy but if they are willing to learn its not impossible .....

/me always asks for help from the great Snowman & on forum (& I have been using Arch for 2 years!!!!)

;-)

demonus · 2006-02-09 14:09:02

imho, creating PKGBUILD is easy, but sometimes it's completly pointless, building most programs you go away with ./configure, make, make install, and creating PKGBUILD just for that is too much hassle
having a tool like checkinstall would ease some of this, then it could ask you about depends and makedepends, say url, package name, package version etc. and create a package that could be handled by pacman

Mr Green · 2006-02-09 14:15:45

namcap ;-)

pikass · 2006-02-09 15:20:22

At least it is much more convenient to edit the PKGBUILD with your editor of choice. The information you have to put in are completly the same but you can redo, undo, copy&paste, autohighlight etc. every part of the file at any time. Something a dialogue based menu wouldnt allow you to.

brain0 · 2006-02-09 15:21:50

demonus wrote:

imho, creating PKGBUILD is easy, but sometimes it's completly pointless, building most programs you go away with ./configure, make, make install, and creating PKGBUILD just for that is too much hassle

I don't get you. A PKGBUILD for a package that is ok with configure && make && make install is created within 2 minutes from the prototype PKGBUILD. If the package is only for local use, you don't even need depends.

tomk · 2006-02-09 15:25:11

Not the first time this has come up - search for checkinstall.

demonus - you may have a point, but building and installing without ABS and pacman leaves you with files in odd places - /usr/local, even /usr/etc (!) - but most significantly IMO, files that pacman knows nothing about. I believe in making the most of our excellent package manger, even for simple stuff like the classic three-step scenario you mention - the more complicated stuff is a no-brainer, of course. I don't think it takes long to get used to ABS, and making usable PKGBUILDs, and it's well worth the effort.

Mr Green · 2006-02-09 16:18:49

nuff said....

Dusty · 2006-02-09 16:26:09

Generally if I don't feel like creating a package, I post a request in the AUR Requests forum and somebody (usually tomk <evil grin> creates a package). I'd say that's much easier than trying to figure out how to use a script.... basically, if you can figure out ./configure; make; make install, you can figure out a PKGBUILD, copy the PKGBUILD.proto and change a couple variables, done.

Now, a script that automatically scans the package directory for clues to some of the variables (pkgname, version, maybe even sources...) and attempts to create a skeleton PKGBUILD for you to help save some typing... that could be fun. Maybe just pass it a source url, it downloads and extracts it, calculates the md5 sums, attempts to extract the name and version from the source filename, could connect to google to get a one-line description, attempt to calculate the license...

Sounds like a fun introductory python project for someone. ;-)

Dusty

demonus · 2006-02-09 16:47:49

brain0 wrote:

demonus wrote:
imho, creating PKGBUILD is easy, but sometimes it's completly pointless, building most programs you go away with ./configure, make, make install, and creating PKGBUILD just for that is too much hassle
I don't get you. A PKGBUILD for a package that is ok with configure && make && make install is created within 2 minutes from the prototype PKGBUILD. If the package is only for local use, you don't even need depends.

Yes, that's nice it takes only few minutes, but first of all, configure typically uses some options of which you usually have little knowledge until you have downloaded the sources and tried to build it. then instead of repeating the process again (subsequent tuning of PKGBUILD to add options you really need) is just a waste of time, secondly why not save those 2 minutes for doing something else?
a kind of a batch build system would be useful
I do not claim that PKGBUILD sysem is useless, as it is great for many subsequent builds (like upgrading to a newer version of some software), but for one time compiles well it just not enough

@tomk
when youre building package by yourself it means that youre competent enough to add --prefix=/usr

rezza · 2006-02-09 17:49:15

Mr Green wrote:

I know several new users who struggle with, or don't have time for the ABS,
:shock:
One of the best features of Arch IMO ....
Repeat after me 'ABS is my friend' ....
ABS allows you to build custom packges from repros... (adding features etc...)
& of course pacman can still track the package (more to the point!)
AUR has overshadowed ABS a little, maybe thats whats putting new users off ....
after all aurbuild is a great tool ;-)
please spare some time to learn ABS you will be rewarded

OK, I have no idea about aurbuild, nor can I find it anywhere on my system. What is it, what does it do, and where does it come from? Right now when I want a package from AUR, I find the PKGBUILD on aur.archlinux.org and paste that into a directory in /var/abs/local/, then just sudo makepkg -si to install it. Is there an easier way?

Also, so far I have been far too lazy to use ABS for anything of my own, I just use ./configure --prefix=/usr && make && sudo make install for everything that's not in AUR

pressh · 2006-02-09 17:56:48

aurbuild is in the AUR itself, so you should just grab it from there. With aurbuild I believe you can install packages just like you do with pacman. Aurbuild grabs the PKGBUILD from the AUR and creates a package & installs it.
Check the AUR to grab it and see if you like it

postlogic · 2006-02-10 12:35:56

Time is of the issue here, like I said. Sure, PKGBUILDs are easy enough for you and me, but at times, there are things where a full package is totally overkill. Granted, altering a base PKGBUILD would be easy, too, but there's still the fact that a user needs to be aware and have atleast the basic knowledge of this.

Now, I know a lot of people do find it faster, more convenient and easier to just make install, which in the end makes it harder to maintain the system due to pacman not being aware of these files at all. So simply having an option where you do, say, ./configure --whatever && make && pacinstall or something, to make pacman aware of this, was what I was thinking.

iphitus · 2006-02-10 13:24:32

ive looked at doing this before. and it wouldnt be very difficult. checkinstall's engine is seperate and known of as installwatch. its very easy to get a list of what files were installed. i think i had a script started somewhere, i might go dig it up.

iphitus

postlogic · 2006-02-10 14:05:35

Woo. We love you, iphitus!

Arch Linux

#1 2006-02-09 13:12:35

Possible suggestion..

#2 2006-02-09 13:22:43

Re: Possible suggestion..

#3 2006-02-09 13:43:21

Re: Possible suggestion..

#4 2006-02-09 14:03:41

Re: Possible suggestion..

#5 2006-02-09 14:09:02

Re: Possible suggestion..

#6 2006-02-09 14:15:45

Re: Possible suggestion..

#7 2006-02-09 15:20:22

Re: Possible suggestion..

#8 2006-02-09 15:21:50

Re: Possible suggestion..

#9 2006-02-09 15:25:11

Re: Possible suggestion..

#10 2006-02-09 16:18:49

Re: Possible suggestion..

#11 2006-02-09 16:26:09

Re: Possible suggestion..

#12 2006-02-09 16:47:49

Re: Possible suggestion..

#13 2006-02-09 17:49:15

Re: Possible suggestion..

#14 2006-02-09 17:56:48

Re: Possible suggestion..

#15 2006-02-10 12:35:56

Re: Possible suggestion..

#16 2006-02-10 13:24:32

Re: Possible suggestion..

#17 2006-02-10 14:05:35

Re: Possible suggestion..

Board footer