PKGBUILD issues after renaming a package

analbeard · 2016-03-02 10:30:01

I look after rclone-bin, and as rclone recently made it into Community the AUR package has been renamed to rclone-bin.

Currently the PKGBUILD has pkgname=rclone-bin, but this then fails when you try and build the package as it substitutes 'rclone-bin' in the path to the src files, rather than just 'rclone'. I changed pkgname to 'rclone' and added pkgbase as rclone-bin as I understand is correct from the wiki, however I cannot push the changes as git reports back that 'package rclone is blacklisted'.

What's the best way to resolve this?

WorMzy · 2016-03-02 10:48:14

pkgname=rclone-bin
_srcname=rclone

Or similar.

Trilby · 2016-03-02 12:56:39

pkgbase is for split packages. WorMzy's suggestion is how this is generally handled, or to only have the name in one place:

_srcname=rclone
pkgname=${_srcname}-bin

You will see something like this in nearly every (if not every) -git PKGBUILD.

But if this is in [community] is the AUR package not redundant?

analbeard · 2016-03-02 13:20:21

Trilby wrote:

pkgbase is for split packages. WorMzy's suggestion is how this is generally handled, or to only have the name in one place:
_srcname=rclone
pkgname=${_srcname}-bin
You will see something like this in nearly every (if not every) -git PKGBUILD.
But if this is in [community] is the AUR package not redundant?

I did wonder that myself to be honest, however there were suggestions in the comments about keeping it and when I posted a topic a while back about renaming the package it wasn't mentioned then that the AUR package should go. I'm fairly new to all this side of Arch so I'm not sure on etiquette in this instance.

_srcname did the job though so thanks for that guys!

Last edited by analbeard (2016-03-02 13:20:35)

Trilby · 2016-03-02 13:43:57

analbeard wrote:

I'm fairly new to all this side of Arch so I'm not sure on etiquette in this instance.

Its not so much of an etiquette issue, just whether the AUR package serves a purpose. There are often packages in the AUR for things that are also in the main repos - sometimes many AUR versions for single repo packages. But these all have some distinct purpose: the main repos contain the upstream "stable" release, the AUR versions may be development versions, have different compilation options (doesn't apply here), or have some other difference.

If the [community] package and the aur package are both intended to track upstream stable releases (and especially given that it's not even compiled by users) I'd suspect they are redundant and the aur package can go, just to keep down the clutter in the AUR.

Arch Linux

#1 2016-03-02 10:30:01

PKGBUILD issues after renaming a package

#2 2016-03-02 10:48:14

Re: PKGBUILD issues after renaming a package

#3 2016-03-02 12:56:39

Re: PKGBUILD issues after renaming a package

#4 2016-03-02 13:20:21

Re: PKGBUILD issues after renaming a package

#5 2016-03-02 13:43:57

Re: PKGBUILD issues after renaming a package

Board footer