packer - New bash aur+pacman wrapper (replaces poorly written yaourt)

bruenig · 2010-01-21 00:10:40

r6 wrote:

As an experiment I modified packer to show the installed status of packages.
Searching 4359 packages (packer -Ss a), packer takes 1 second, and the modified packer takes 20 seconds. (yaourt took 3 minutes 43 seconds). There might be a faster way to do it, though.

I am thinking of a way to do it with pacman -T that might be reasonbly fast. We'll see.

bruenig · 2010-01-21 00:20:16

buttons wrote:

Minor bug:
resolving dependencies...
Dependency ` lib32-pcre of `bin32-skype' does not exist.
Not updating `bin32-skype'.

Aur Targets    (0): 

Proceed with installation? [Y/n]
Pressing 'n' to not install 0 of 0 targets does not result in the universe imploding, as expected.

I believe I have fixed it. packer -S packer and see.

MajorTom · 2010-01-21 00:43:58

bruenig wrote:

MajorTom wrote:
Matthew, do you feel packer -Sg searchstring could be easily implemented?
I think it would be beneficial and again it's something to complete the -S set of arguments.
I am not sure how to search for package groups on aur.

It would simply call sudo pacman -Sg so it wouldn't be searching AUR.
Currently, I have to do pacman -Sg or pacman -Sg | grep searchstring. If I could do packer -Sg to display all groups and packer -Sg searchstring (no pipe and no grep) to search, I would be really happy.

But what I would really like to see is the implementation of the -q(uiet) argument. Try pacman -Ss and then -Ssq to see the difference.

Last edited by MajorTom (2010-01-21 00:47:19)

rson451 · 2010-01-21 01:05:13

bruenig wrote:

I am not sure how to search for package groups on aur.

AFAIK there is no such sillyness.

kaptenen · 2010-01-21 01:21:53

Using it right now, thanks.

bruenig · 2010-01-21 04:44:51

MajorTom wrote:

bruenig wrote:
MajorTom wrote:
Matthew, do you feel packer -Sg searchstring could be easily implemented?
I think it would be beneficial and again it's something to complete the -S set of arguments.
I am not sure how to search for package groups on aur.
It would simply call sudo pacman -Sg so it wouldn't be searching AUR.
Currently, I have to do pacman -Sg or pacman -Sg | grep searchstring. If I could do packer -Sg to display all groups and packer -Sg searchstring (no pipe and no grep) to search, I would be really happy.
But what I would really like to see is the implementation of the -q(uiet) argument. Try pacman -Ss and then -Ssq to see the difference.

If you are just searching through pacman repos for groups, I am confused as to why you don't just use pacman. If searching through the groups is a real problem and you do it a lot, I would talk to pacman devs or write a simple pacman -Sg | grep $1 alias/script. Packer does not really intend to extend pacman functionality at this point at least. That leads you on the road to bloatsville in my opinion.

-Ssq is actually probably pretty useful, I might have go grit my teeth and actually implement a real argument parsing strategy though to implement it, that is the only barrier . It's in the queue we'll say. I might also implement it as --quiet. We'll see.

Last edited by bruenig (2010-01-21 04:57:39)

MajorTom · 2010-01-21 06:57:02

Well, you've got a point there. Somehow I envisioned using packer exclusively for all my searches and installs and using pacman for querying, removing and everything else.

Let's stay away from Bloatsville then.

Last edited by MajorTom (2010-01-21 06:57:21)

lovebug356 · 2010-01-21 09:02:20

I'm using a lot this command:

yaourt -G <packagename>

to download the PKGCONFIG (and friends) in the current directory for the given package.

Will there be something similar implemented for packer?

kalpik · 2010-01-21 09:09:50

+1 for -G

Sirsurthur · 2010-01-21 09:42:39

One more question too.

Will it be possible or is it actually possible to choose the $EDITOR in order too check pkgbuilds ? I personally am used too nano instead of vi.

Thanks for packer.

na12 · 2010-01-21 09:44:31

bruenig wrote:

buttons wrote:
Minor bug:
resolving dependencies...
Dependency ` lib32-pcre of `bin32-skype' does not exist.
Not updating `bin32-skype'.

Aur Targets    (0): 

Proceed with installation? [Y/n]
Pressing 'n' to not install 0 of 0 targets does not result in the universe imploding, as expected.
I believe I have fixed it. packer -S packer and see.

still not working

rson451 · 2010-01-21 12:40:43

Sirsurthur wrote:

Will it be possible or is it actually possible to choose the $EDITOR in order too check pkgbuilds ? I personally am used too nano instead of vi.

Unless I read this wrong, it should already do this:

${EDITOR:-vi} PKGBUILD

MajorTom · 2010-01-21 16:09:37

Thanks to packer and its development pace, I am now severely addicted to doing packer -S packer.

drcouzelis · 2010-01-21 16:39:20

MajorTom wrote:

Thanks to packer and its development pace, I am now severely addicted to doing packer -S packer.

Intervention!

I love seeing all of these feature requests. That means more and more people are trying it out.

bruenig · 2010-01-21 19:01:49

Sirsurthur wrote:

One more question too.
Will it be possible or is it actually possible to choose the $EDITOR in order too check pkgbuilds ? I personally am used too nano instead of vi.
Thanks for packer.

You need to set the EDITOR environment variable. For instance, in your /etc/profile, put a line that says export EDITOR="emacs". This is a pretty common unix convention to rely on the EDITOR env variable.

bruenig · 2010-01-21 19:07:58

na12 wrote:

bruenig wrote:
buttons wrote:
Minor bug:
resolving dependencies...
Dependency ` lib32-pcre of `bin32-skype' does not exist.
Not updating `bin32-skype'.

Aur Targets    (0): 

Proceed with installation? [Y/n]
Pressing 'n' to not install 0 of 0 targets does not result in the universe imploding, as expected.
I believe I have fixed it. packer -S packer and see.
still not working

I don't understand.

[[ $localpackages ]] || exit

This on line 496 tests if there are any packages for whom finding dependencies was successful. Shrug.

Last edited by bruenig (2010-01-21 19:08:37)

bruenig · 2010-01-21 19:13:20

lovebug356 wrote:

I'm using a lot this command:
yaourt -G <packagename>
to download the PKGCONFIG (and friends) in the current directory for the given package.
Will there be something similar implemented for packer?

Put this function in your .bashrc

getaurtarball() {
  wget "http://aur.archlinux.org/packages/$1/$1.tar.gz" && tar xf "$1.tar.gz"
}

I don't know. It seems so trivial. If people really ask for it, I guess I can add it. It just does not strike me as something for which a wrapper is necessary.

Last edited by bruenig (2010-01-21 19:14:42)

MajorTom · 2010-01-22 04:05:23

bruenig: how about -Syyu? I don't use it a lot but sometimes I end up forcing a refresh this way.
Thanks.

doorknob60 · 2010-01-22 04:25:51

Wow, that's pretty freakin fast I suggest putting whether or not a package is installed next to the package name while searching and also the number of AUR votes. Those are two things I'm very used to so I kinda need them, well at least the installed. EDIT: I guess that would really slow it down though Calling pacman a crapload of times...

Well, will still be replacing yaourt for me though

EDIT: Small bug, on the syncing AUR progress bar, it shows two % signs

Last edited by doorknob60 (2010-01-22 04:36:45)

drcouzelis · 2010-01-22 04:59:02

MajorTom wrote:

how about -Syyu?

Is it important to put that into packer, instead of just relying on pacman to do it?

doorknob60 wrote:

Small bug, on the syncing AUR progress bar, it shows two % signs

My gosh. I never noticed! Seriously.

bruenig · 2010-01-22 07:01:57

doorknob60 wrote:

Wow, that's pretty freakin fast I suggest putting whether or not a package is installed next to the package name while searching and also the number of AUR votes. Those are two things I'm very used to so I kinda need them, well at least the installed. EDIT: I guess that would really slow it down though Calling pacman a crapload of times...
Well, will still be replacing yaourt for me though
EDIT: Small bug, on the syncing AUR progress bar, it shows two % signs

It shows one % here. I changed the line that outputs that to use echo instead of printf because the printf syntax for outputting a % is %%. I don't know if that fixes it.

bruenig · 2010-01-22 07:03:55

MajorTom wrote:

bruenig: how about -Syyu? I don't use it a lot but sometimes I end up forcing a refresh this way.
Thanks.

Seems like you should be doing pacman -Syy ; packer -Su.

Last edited by bruenig (2010-01-22 07:04:51)

MajorTom · 2010-01-22 16:51:11

Fair enough.

Just to explain why I thought it'd be useful - I'd like to use packer for all actions related to searching and installing packages and updating the system (official repos and AUR). And I'd use pacman for queries, removals and everything else. So, I felt -Syyu would just nicely complete the -S set of arguments.

kalpik · 2010-01-22 17:50:47

It doesn't install bin-32-skype.. Says "Dependency ` lib32-pcre' of `bin32-skype' does not exist.".

Maybe trim the leading space?

drcouzelis · 2010-01-22 17:59:54

kalpik wrote:

It doesn't install bin-32-skype.. Says "Dependency ` lib32-pcre' of `bin32-skype' does not exist.".
Maybe trim the leading space?

http://aur.archlinux.org/packages/bin32 … e/PKGBUILD

Yep, there's an extra space in the depends line for ' lib32-pcre'. Someone already posted a comment to the maintainer about it, but it apparently didn't get fixed.

I don't know if packer should "fix" this kind of thing. Also, you can always edit the PKGBUILD yourself when you run packer.

Arch Linux

#126 2010-01-21 00:10:40

Re: packer - New bash aur+pacman wrapper (replaces poorly written yaourt)

#127 2010-01-21 00:20:16

Re: packer - New bash aur+pacman wrapper (replaces poorly written yaourt)

#128 2010-01-21 00:43:58

Re: packer - New bash aur+pacman wrapper (replaces poorly written yaourt)

#129 2010-01-21 01:05:13

Re: packer - New bash aur+pacman wrapper (replaces poorly written yaourt)

#130 2010-01-21 01:21:53

Re: packer - New bash aur+pacman wrapper (replaces poorly written yaourt)

#131 2010-01-21 04:44:51

Re: packer - New bash aur+pacman wrapper (replaces poorly written yaourt)

#132 2010-01-21 06:57:02

Re: packer - New bash aur+pacman wrapper (replaces poorly written yaourt)

#133 2010-01-21 09:02:20

Re: packer - New bash aur+pacman wrapper (replaces poorly written yaourt)

#134 2010-01-21 09:09:50

Re: packer - New bash aur+pacman wrapper (replaces poorly written yaourt)

#135 2010-01-21 09:42:39

Re: packer - New bash aur+pacman wrapper (replaces poorly written yaourt)

#136 2010-01-21 09:44:31

Re: packer - New bash aur+pacman wrapper (replaces poorly written yaourt)

#137 2010-01-21 12:40:43

Re: packer - New bash aur+pacman wrapper (replaces poorly written yaourt)

#138 2010-01-21 16:09:37

Re: packer - New bash aur+pacman wrapper (replaces poorly written yaourt)

#139 2010-01-21 16:39:20

Re: packer - New bash aur+pacman wrapper (replaces poorly written yaourt)

#140 2010-01-21 19:01:49

Re: packer - New bash aur+pacman wrapper (replaces poorly written yaourt)

#141 2010-01-21 19:07:58

Re: packer - New bash aur+pacman wrapper (replaces poorly written yaourt)

#142 2010-01-21 19:13:20

Re: packer - New bash aur+pacman wrapper (replaces poorly written yaourt)

#143 2010-01-22 04:05:23

Re: packer - New bash aur+pacman wrapper (replaces poorly written yaourt)

#144 2010-01-22 04:25:51

Re: packer - New bash aur+pacman wrapper (replaces poorly written yaourt)

#145 2010-01-22 04:59:02

Re: packer - New bash aur+pacman wrapper (replaces poorly written yaourt)

#146 2010-01-22 07:01:57

Re: packer - New bash aur+pacman wrapper (replaces poorly written yaourt)

#147 2010-01-22 07:03:55

Re: packer - New bash aur+pacman wrapper (replaces poorly written yaourt)

#148 2010-01-22 16:51:11

Re: packer - New bash aur+pacman wrapper (replaces poorly written yaourt)

#149 2010-01-22 17:50:47

Re: packer - New bash aur+pacman wrapper (replaces poorly written yaourt)

#150 2010-01-22 17:59:54

Re: packer - New bash aur+pacman wrapper (replaces poorly written yaourt)

Board footer