You are not logged in.

#1 2017-02-12 10:33:04

K3N8
Member
From: The Netherlands
Registered: 2011-11-02
Posts: 62

qtwebkit

Hi,

Recently the qtwebkit was deleted from the repository. When I wanted to install google-music-manager through AUR it needed qtwebkit. It took ages to build, so I killed it. Is there an alternative for this package?

Thanks,

Alexander


Arch Linux x86_64 LTS

Offline

#2 2017-02-12 11:44:34

pb
Member
From: Krakow, PL
Registered: 2014-12-26
Posts: 336
Website

Offline

#3 2017-02-12 14:12:01

Scimmia
Fellow
Registered: 2012-09-01
Posts: 11,465

Re: qtwebkit

Online

#4 2017-02-23 15:00:15

papajonpizza
Member
From: Los Angeles
Registered: 2013-06-13
Posts: 12
Website

Re: qtwebkit

K3N8 wrote:

Hi,

Recently the qtwebkit was deleted from the repository. When I wanted to install google-music-manager through AUR it needed qtwebkit. It took ages to build, so I killed it. Is there an alternative for this package?

Thanks,

Alexander

Same with me.  It was taking a while so I killed it, but last night before going to bed, I decided to try again and left it.  It took about 4.5 hours and the directory size was 1.8GB after it was done.  I used /tmp/downloads

Core i7 Laptop 2677M  w/ 10GB of RAM.

  -jeremy


Xiaomi Notebook Air 13 - 13.3" display | Intel Core i5 6200 | 8GB RAM | 256GB SSD | Arch Linux -  GNOME desktop

Offline

#5 2017-02-24 08:20:20

Ocye
Member
Registered: 2011-12-07
Posts: 29

Re: qtwebkit

+1 (using Lazarus with Qt interface)

Offline

#6 2017-02-24 11:38:59

philo
Member
Registered: 2015-01-26
Posts: 251

Re: qtwebkit

The maintainer FredBezies just disowned the package.

Offline

#7 2017-02-24 15:37:53

PhotonX
Member
From: Munich
Registered: 2008-08-10
Posts: 591

Re: qtwebkit

I think, this should become a binary package...


Desktop: http://www.sysprofile.de/id15562, Arch Linux    |    Notebook: Thinkpad L13 Yoga Gen2, Manjaro

The very worst thing you can do with free software is to download it, see that it doesn't work for some reason, leave it, and tell your friends that it doesn't work.  -  Tuomas Lukka

Offline

#8 2017-02-24 15:45:24

Trilby
Inspector Parrot
Registered: 2011-11-29
Posts: 29,446
Website

Re: qtwebkit

PhotonX wrote:

I think, this should become a binary package...

Great!  Let us know when you've set up your repo and built the package for others to benefit from.

EDIT: perhaps my sarcasm was overstated, as it seems PhotonX is maintaining a large number of AUR packages which contributes positively to this community.  Just the same, though, such statements are just ... odd.  Hoping someone else will do the work to provide something you want is not really the right approach.


"UNIX is simple and coherent..." - Dennis Ritchie, "GNU's Not UNIX" -  Richard Stallman

Online

#9 2017-02-24 18:43:01

PhotonX
Member
From: Munich
Registered: 2008-08-10
Posts: 591

Re: qtwebkit

Well, since the idea of making it a binary package didn't appear here so far, I thought, it's worth mentioning - maybe somebody would use it and make a binary package. smile Actually, I was thinking of taking a go and create a binary package myself (not a repo but an AUR package which downloads precompiled stuff from somewhere, like all the *-bin packages in the AUR), but I have no 32 Bit machine running, so I'd have to make a VM install first, which is quite a hassle. Was hoping, maybe somebody is better equipped to do the packaging. Actually, there are binary package available (a user posted links in the comments of the AUR package) but they are not in the AUR...

Last edited by PhotonX (2017-02-24 18:44:13)


Desktop: http://www.sysprofile.de/id15562, Arch Linux    |    Notebook: Thinkpad L13 Yoga Gen2, Manjaro

The very worst thing you can do with free software is to download it, see that it doesn't work for some reason, leave it, and tell your friends that it doesn't work.  -  Tuomas Lukka

Offline

#10 2017-02-24 19:00:42

eschwartz
Fellow
Registered: 2014-08-08
Posts: 4,097

Re: qtwebkit

That makes no sense. *-bin packages are for upstream-precompiled tarballs, generally standalone ones statically linked or linked against internal copies of libs, and generally installed to /opt.
PKGBUILDs should NOT download a pacman package from a repo somewhere, extract it, and then repackage it -- just to save hapless users the effort of acquiring the package in some sensible, sane manner!

Do not do this.


Managing AUR repos The Right Way -- aurpublish (now a standalone tool)

Offline

#11 2017-02-24 19:31:23

metak
Member
Registered: 2009-09-27
Posts: 198

Re: qtwebkit

Hey PhotonX. I posted links to built packages in my opensuse build service repo because it takes a while to build the package and some users had troubles building it and I thought it might come handy to others too. ;-)

Last edited by metak (2017-02-24 19:32:15)

Offline

#12 2017-02-24 19:59:25

PhotonX
Member
From: Munich
Registered: 2008-08-10
Posts: 591

Re: qtwebkit

@Eschwartz: What is wrong with compiling the software dynamically on an Arch machine and put the binary in an AUR package (that is, not directly into the package, but upload it somewhere and let makepkg download it the same way it is done with statically linked binaries)? It is basically the same as what happens with the packages from the official repos. Why isn't this sensible and sane and what would be sensible and sane? The way it happens now, that is, providing a source package and letting the users do the compilation is certainly not very sensible since, depending on the hardware, the compilation takes many hours (a user reported in the Manjaro forums that it took over 8 hours for him). The way offered by metak (an external repo) is a far better solution but I see several downsides here:

1. It is harder to report bugs or get support (the AUR's comment functionality is really a blessing and it is usually not available for an external repo).
2. Users need to find the external repo first of all. Many are using AUR helpers, see the source package and install it (which leads to horrific compilation times), how are they supposed to get the idea that an external repo with a binary package exists?
3. Other AUR packages, which have qtwebkit as dependency don't "know" about any external repos. I think, it would be a bad thing for AUR packages to rely on dependencies in external repos.
4. Right now there is luckily metak who takes care of an external repo but maybe he won't be willing or able to maintain it at some point. In case of an AUR package the maintainer would just orphan the package and somebody else would pick it up (which btw. exactly happened with the qtwebkit AUR package today). This doesn't work as easily with an external repo.

@metak: See above. smile

Last edited by PhotonX (2017-02-24 20:06:59)


Desktop: http://www.sysprofile.de/id15562, Arch Linux    |    Notebook: Thinkpad L13 Yoga Gen2, Manjaro

The very worst thing you can do with free software is to download it, see that it doesn't work for some reason, leave it, and tell your friends that it doesn't work.  -  Tuomas Lukka

Offline

#13 2017-02-24 20:17:05

metak
Member
Registered: 2009-09-27
Posts: 198

Re: qtwebkit

PhotonX, no-one should add my repo to their system. ;-) I merely provided built packages as a workaround until someone else takes over the maintenance of this package. I needed 'qtwebkit' just for one package 'quiterss-qt4' because the regular 'quiterss' built with qt5 wouldn't start. Luckily I've found a solution/workaround and it works now and I can remove 'qtwebkit' from my system. So, no I won't maintain it.

Offline

#14 2017-02-24 20:17:55

eschwartz
Fellow
Registered: 2014-08-08
Posts: 4,097

Re: qtwebkit

PhotonX wrote:

@Eschwartz: What is wrong with compiling the software dynamically on an Arch machine and put the binary in an AUR package (that is, not directly into the package, but upload it somewhere and let makepkg download it the same way it is done with statically linked binaries)? It is basically the same as what happens with the packages from the official repos.

I thought I answered that in my initial post, when I said "just to save hapless users the effort of acquiring the package [...]".

Maybe I should have been more specific, and called them "idiotic users who don't know how to read the comments, can't figure out how to google, and whose grasp on basic AUR concepts is about as thorough as the average user of the archlinuxfr repository"?

Why isn't this sensible and sane and what would be sensible and sane? The way it happens now, that is, providing a source package and letting the users do the compilation is certainly not very sensible since, depending on the hardware, the compilation takes many hours (a user reported in the Manjaro forums that it took over 8 hours for him). The way offered by metak (an external repo) is a far better solution but I see several downsides here:

You have answered your own question, congrats! And it isn't a "far better solution", it is the only solution for a binary package, and users who are interested in such things should already know to consult the Wiki under "Unofficial User Repositories".

1. It is harder to report bugs or get support (the AURs comment functionality is really a blessing and it is usually not available for an external repo).

No it isn't. I assume the repo uses the AUR version of the PKGBUILD. Also, laziness.
Perhaps, since it is orphaned and metak is interested in providing binary packages, he should take over maintenance of the AUR package.

EDIT: Maybe not. But I still maintain that a binary package should be built from the AUR package, should stick to providing a precompiled version of that package, and should not try to do anything demented like provide some pseudo-fake dummy package that IMHO should be deleted by the TUs on sight.

2. Users need to find the external repo first of all. Many are using AUR helpers, see the source package and install it (which leads to horrific compilation times), how are they supposed to get the idea that an external repo with a binary package exists?

Leave a pinned comment on the AUR page.

3. Other AUR packages, which have qtwebkit as dependency don't "know" about any external repos. I think, it would be a bad thing for AUR packages to rely on dependencies in external repos.

What is this garbage? Why would AUR packages care where you get a package named "qtwebkit"? I didn't advocate deleting it from the AUR just because it is also in an Unofficial User Repository...

4. Right now there is luckily metak who takes care of an external repo but maybe he won't be willing or able to maintain it at some point. In case of an AUR package the maintainer would just orphan the package and somebody else would pick it up (which btw. exactly happened with the qtwebkit AUR package today). This doesn't work as easily with an external repo.

How exactly is this different from your preferred solution of downloading metak's hypothetically no-longer-existing binary package and extracting it then repackaging it as another pkgname?

Last edited by eschwartz (2017-02-24 20:43:33)


Managing AUR repos The Right Way -- aurpublish (now a standalone tool)

Offline

#15 2017-04-02 15:13:09

jooch
Member
Registered: 2010-03-09
Posts: 48

Re: qtwebkit

I just removed the arduide-git package, the only one that was still using it on my system. I'm not going the waste precious resources or energy for that matter on outdated programs.

I'm curious what package(s) others here use that still need qtwebkit.

Offline

#16 2017-04-10 07:23:48

K3N8
Member
From: The Netherlands
Registered: 2011-11-02
Posts: 62

Re: qtwebkit

I used downgrade to install the latest version of qtwebkit.


Arch Linux x86_64 LTS

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB