[SOLVED] AUR: A way to see if full compile necessary?

Epp · 2022-11-17 16:48:37

Sorry, did not look in the * manual.
Getting to know more about makepkg is on my to do list. Not on top though.

Looking around for a specific package, is there a way in advance (before install) to see if full compile is necessary?

Ok, let's make it concrete.

This package:
https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/ungoogled-chromium

It has got 318 votes at this moment, but if the 21 vote package (https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/ungo … romium-bin) does not need full compile, I would love to kick the normal version off my pc.
Saves time (about 45 minutes on my, to my opinion, fast machine), money and will be much better for the environment.

Greetings!

Last edited by Epp (2022-11-17 18:12:23)

V1del · 2022-11-17 16:51:07

Any self respecting binary package should have the -bin suffix unless it's a completely proprietary application that doesn't exist in source form

Other than that, the only surefire way is to look at the PKGBUILD and make yourself accustomed with what kind of actions would entail a build or wouldn't, which is something you should be doing regardless anyway. Generally relatively safe, if the package does not have a build() function it likely doesn't compile anything. But the AUR is untrusted and there's no guarantee that any maintainer adheres to the common standards or know what they are doing so you need to actually look at the PKGBUILD.

For this concrete case, by this definition, indeed the ungoogled.chromium-bin package is a binary package that won't lead to a rebuild

Last edited by V1del (2022-11-17 16:54:00)

Trilby · 2022-11-17 16:58:29

V1del wrote:

if the package does not have a build() function it likely doesn't compile anything.

Also keep in mind that the converse may not be valid: if a package does not have a build() function it does not build something (or it is a crap PKGBUILD that needs to be fixed), but just because it has a build() function does not mean it necessarily compiles anything. For example, any number of scripting language packages may have a build function in which as the simples example a scriptfile.in might be renamed scriptfile.sh, and while this is something that would be properly done in a build() function, there is no actual building (i.e., compiling) happening.

The same one-way application of the test goes for the -bin suffix. Any package that ends in -bin should not be building the software. But there are lots of binary packages that don't build but don't end in -bin (and it is propper that they should not, e.g., if they package proprietary software for which no source code is available).

Also keep in mind that building a web browser from source is a ridiculous amount of work (actually it's the rendering engine that is, but just the same). Web rendering engines and the linux kernel itself are the biggest compiling beasts that would be fairly commonly used. A vast majority of software that is compiled from source could still be built in just a couple seconds on your hardware to a point that you might not really care if most AUR packages are precompiled or not - this concern may only apply to the beasts of packages which are pretty rare.

Last edited by Trilby (2022-11-17 17:03:05)

Epp · 2022-11-17 18:11:38

Thanks a lot V1del and Trilby for the info and help.

It's clear to me now that binary is pre built (unlike from source).

Arch Linux

#1 2022-11-17 16:48:37

[SOLVED] AUR: A way to see if full compile necessary?

#2 2022-11-17 16:51:07

Re: [SOLVED] AUR: A way to see if full compile necessary?

#3 2022-11-17 16:58:29

Re: [SOLVED] AUR: A way to see if full compile necessary?

#4 2022-11-17 18:11:38

Re: [SOLVED] AUR: A way to see if full compile necessary?

Board footer