AUR Guidelines: Where is said that packages not conflict with core?

dreieck · 2024-01-14 10:31:33

Ahoj,

I noticed that on the AUR some `-nosystemd` packages, are flagged to be deleted because they depend on some package that is not awailable for Arch Linux and would conflict with Arch Linux' `systemd`.

I got deletion requests for the packages

`libratbag-nosystemd-git` and

`miraclecast-nosystemd-git`

with the following comment:

MarsSeed wrote:

AUR packages have to be compatible with Arch Linux.
This isn't: its dependency `elogind` is not installable due to conflicting with `core/filesystem` and `core/systemd`.
Therefore this package belongs to systemd-less Arch Linux derivative distros.
Artix Linux has `elogind` and their repos are open to hosting even `-git` packages.

From the comment it reads that the AUR does not accept packages that would conflict with packages from Arch Linux `core` repository, but I tried to read the "manual" (https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/AUR_su … guidelines) and coud not find a rule there.

I then asked back to MarsSeed:

dreieck wrote:

Can you please provide me the rule that states that?
I have read https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/AUR_su … guidelines
and do not find that rule there.

but got no answer.

I cannot find any justification for the claim of the person who flagged for deletion (the person wrote "AUR packages have to be compatible with Arch Linux" but I could not find the rule that states that) and the person did not show me the justification.

So I want to ask here:

Where is this rule laid out?
(And I can completely understand if there would be such rule, since the AUR is Arch's project, but I do not see that rule.)

There is a (by some people even quite emotional) discussion about this here on the Artix forum, this might be interesting for reference; e.g. there it is also mentioned that the AUR accepts also other packages that make an installation deviate from mainline Arch and some reasoning why this could be wanted (ARM was given as a case, 32bit might be another).

Regards!

V1del · 2024-01-14 12:51:38

https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/AUR_su … submission -- bullet point 3

"Useful" is of course a not clearly defined word and will be interpreted differently by different people (you might have a case to ask on the wiki's talk page so that can be more explicitly amended -- assuming the deletion requests gets granted, anyone can request anything, if it's actually granted then the AUR TU's/package maintainers likely agree) but as far as "general consensus" goes, the given package should at least still be compatible with Arch Linux. If a given package has an additional side effect of being useful for other distributions/architectures that's a nice bonus but if it's solely useful for distributions that aren't Arch then it's more likely they will get removed.

But for an authoritative answer on this you should actually see if you get a TU to respond when posting to the aur-general mailing list.

Last edited by V1del (2024-01-14 12:52:00)

a821 · 2024-01-14 13:12:22

The AUR is for Arch, not Artix or derivatives as mentioned above. This has been stated by TU's in the mailing lists aur-general and aur-requests, IIRC. This is the reason why ARM only packages have not been accepted and deleted instead. I would ask in the aur-general list as v1del says or wait for a TU to decide on the request (I've seen you replied on aur-requests, but this could be missed by a TU)

dreieck · 2024-01-14 13:35:30

a821 wrote:

The AUR is for Arch, not Artix or derivatives as mentioned above. [...] This is the reason why ARM only packages have not been accepted and deleted instead.

Thanks for the clarification.

Can this then be find it's way explicitly in the official documentation so that there is some justification that can be referred to & people who submit to the AUR can have a fair chance to know? (I do not dare to change the Arch Wiki in that respect because I don't see myself as part of Arch's steering commitee or such.)
(Monitoring some internal mailing lists is not the kind of "official documentation" suited for users of the AUR, which is meant to be generally with low entrance level.)

Last edited by dreieck (2024-01-14 13:36:30)

seth · 2024-01-14 13:50:53

AUR packages have to be compatible with Arch Linux.
This isn't: its dependency `elogind` is not installable due to conflicting with `core/filesystem` and `core/systemd`.

This boils down to whether that s true.
Can I install your package on archlinux in any capacity yes or no.

From the comments is probably should depend on eudev-systemdcompat which replaces(?) systemd?
But there's no eudev-systemdcompat package?

If this is just an issue w/ figuring out the dependency/conflict/replacement chain that needs to be fixed but there's no grounds to remove the package.
At least I've not seen a "systemd is thy init process. though shalt not have any other init process than systemd" rule anywhere.

a821 · 2024-01-14 14:16:57

dreieck wrote:

a821 wrote:
The AUR is for Arch, not Artix or derivatives as mentioned above. [...] This is the reason why ARM only packages have not been accepted and deleted instead.
Thanks for the clarification.
Can this then be find it's way explicitly in the official documentation so that there is some justification that can be referred to & people who submit to the AUR can have a fair chance to know?

I don't know why this is not stated in the wiki or rules of submission. Here is a more or less recent example of a deletion request of an ARM only package: https://lists.archlinux.org/hyperkitty/ … IDQVS6ISCM

Lone_Wolf · 2024-01-14 17:51:32

dreieck wrote:

(Monitoring some internal mailing lists is not the kind of "official documentation" suited for users of the AUR, which is meant to be generally with low entrance level.)

aur-general is not 'some internal mailing list', but the official method to discuss AUR issues as mentioned on the aur homepage.

https://aur.archlinux.org/ wrote:

Discussion
General discussion regarding the Arch User Repository (AUR) and Package Maintainer structure takes place on aur-general. For discussion relating to the development of the AUR web interface, use the aur-dev mailing list.

Arch Linux

#1 2024-01-14 10:31:33

AUR Guidelines: Where is said that packages not conflict with core?

#2 2024-01-14 12:51:38

Re: AUR Guidelines: Where is said that packages not conflict with core?

#3 2024-01-14 13:12:22

Re: AUR Guidelines: Where is said that packages not conflict with core?

#4 2024-01-14 13:35:30

Re: AUR Guidelines: Where is said that packages not conflict with core?

#5 2024-01-14 13:50:53

Re: AUR Guidelines: Where is said that packages not conflict with core?

#6 2024-01-14 14:16:57

Re: AUR Guidelines: Where is said that packages not conflict with core?

#7 2024-01-14 17:51:32

Re: AUR Guidelines: Where is said that packages not conflict with core?

Board footer