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

bruenig · 2010-01-29 20:13:31

JayJay wrote:

Package group oder provider package as dependency
If i try to install fcron, i get this:
% packer -S fcron
Dependency `smtp-server' of `fcron' does not exist.
Then I...
 % packer -S smtp-server
Package `smtp-server' does not exist.
Search for it...
 % packer -Ss smtp-server
extra/courier-mta 0.62.1-4 [5.58 MB]
    IMAP(s)/POP3(s) and SMTP Server with ML-manager, webmail and webconfig
extra/exim 4.69-2 [0.45 MB]
    A Message Transfer Agent
extra/postfix 2.6.5-3 [3.35 MB]
    Secure, fast, easy to administer drop in replacement for Sendmail (MTA)
community/esmtp 1.2-1 [0.02 MB]
    An easy smtp forwarder
If i install esmtp and then fcron it works.
Is this a bug of packer, or is the PKGBUILD of fcron wrong/bad?
JJ

This is a problem I had considered a while ago, but never managed to get around to trying to fix. I guess makepkg has it fixed so I can figure out what it is doing. Basically the issue is that it is depending on something that doesn't exist but is in many packages provides=(). So yeah.

Last edited by bruenig (2010-01-29 20:13:55)

brisbin33 · 2010-01-29 21:31:57

bruenig wrote:

JayJay wrote:
Package group oder provider package as dependency
If i try to install fcron, i get this:
% packer -S fcron
Dependency `smtp-server' of `fcron' does not exist.
Then I...
 % packer -S smtp-server
Package `smtp-server' does not exist.
Search for it...
 % packer -Ss smtp-server
extra/courier-mta 0.62.1-4 [5.58 MB]
    IMAP(s)/POP3(s) and SMTP Server with ML-manager, webmail and webconfig
extra/exim 4.69-2 [0.45 MB]
    A Message Transfer Agent
extra/postfix 2.6.5-3 [3.35 MB]
    Secure, fast, easy to administer drop in replacement for Sendmail (MTA)
community/esmtp 1.2-1 [0.02 MB]
    An easy smtp forwarder
If i install esmtp and then fcron it works.
Is this a bug of packer, or is the PKGBUILD of fcron wrong/bad?
JJ
This is a problem I had considered a while ago, but never managed to get around to trying to fix. I guess makepkg has it fixed so I can figure out what it is doing. Basically the issue is that it is depending on something that doesn't exist but is in many packages provides=(). So yeah.

aurget fails for this too. i /think/ i've fixed it with this but i'm not sure.

558         if pacman -Sqs ^$dep$ &>/dev/null; then
559           warn "$dep required by $name. this may be installed via pacman."

basically pacman -Sqs ^$dep$ will only return true if pacman has exactly it or something providing exactly it in the repo. before, i was doing -Sqs $dep | grep -Fqx $dep, which matches nothing in the case of a provides package.

bruenig · 2010-01-29 22:18:39

Following brisbin's advice, I believe I have fixed the problem. packer -S packer and see.

Also, I added Make Depends info in packer -Si for aur packages.

cesura · 2010-01-30 05:46:21

Thanks for this tool. I'm so happy I can finally dump yaourt. I'm telling everyone I know about this.

Bregol · 2010-01-30 18:15:07

hmmm... fast and works well so far. I might like this one. I just miss being able to see in searches what is installed and what is not. Also seeing # of votes in AUR is helpful for picking which aur packages to try out first.

oszabolcs · 2010-01-30 19:28:45

Thanks for packer, I'm successfully using it over two weeks.
I found a ?bug. While using the -G option, if package.tar.gz exists, then the downloaded file's name gets an incrementing number postfix, but the original file will be extracted.
wget "http://aur.archlinux.org/packages/$pack … age.tar.gz" -O "$package.tar.gz" did solve this at line 571.

bruenig · 2010-01-30 20:04:09

oszabolcs wrote:

Thanks for packer, I'm successfully using it over two weeks.
I found a ?bug. While using the -G option, if package.tar.gz exists, then the downloaded file's name gets an incrementing number postfix, but the original file will be extracted.
wget "http://aur.archlinux.org/packages/$pack … age.tar.gz" -O "$package.tar.gz" did solve this at line 571.

Change pushed. packer -S packer to get new.

Gumper · 2010-01-30 20:31:14

Is it possible to have packer remove the build dependencies used in building AUR's after the program is installed? This is one feature that I find handy in Bauerbill.

Skripka · 2010-01-30 21:07:23

Bregol wrote:

I just miss being able to see in searches what is installed and what is not. Also seeing # of votes in AUR is helpful for picking which aur packages to try out first.

These. Otherwise GREAT work

Arm-the-Homeless · 2010-01-30 22:27:51

I use this over yaourt. It's perfect.

bruenig · 2010-01-31 03:30:00

MajorTom, what do you want the quiet output to look like. When I do pacman -Ssq the only thing it shows is the package name, is this it?

MajorTom · 2010-01-31 05:47:35

Yes, that's all I need.

bruenig · 2010-01-31 07:41:25

I added --quiet so that I could utilize the option for both interactive mode and the normal -Ss mode. I don't know. I kind of feel like very few people will ever use --quiet, but whatever I guess. It doesn't slow anything down and actually makes sure not to set description arrays and version arrays when the flag is used (thus making it truly faster as it should be).

venky80 · 2010-01-31 09:26:58

Gumper wrote:

Is it possible to have packer remove the build dependencies used in building AUR's after the program is installed? This is one feature that I find handy in Bauerbill.

this would be great feature if implemented

MajorTom · 2010-01-31 17:02:00

bruenig wrote:

I added --quiet so that I could utilize the option for both interactive mode and the normal -Ss mode. I don't know. I kind of feel like very few people will ever use --quiet, but whatever I guess. It doesn't slow anything down and actually makes sure not to set description arrays and version arrays when the flag is used (thus making it truly faster as it should be).

I appreciate it.
Since I'm so used to one letter arguments, I've tried adding the following:

# Argument parsing
[[ $1 ]] || usage
packageargs=()
while [[ $1 ]]; do
  case "$1" in
    '-S') option=install ;;
    '-Ss') option=search ;;
    '-Ssq'|'-Sqs') option=search ; quiet='1' ;; # <===== ** here **

It works nicely and I didn't notice any speed issues. Is this not acceptable for any reason?

bruenig · 2010-01-31 18:06:34

MajorTom wrote:

bruenig wrote:
I added --quiet so that I could utilize the option for both interactive mode and the normal -Ss mode. I don't know. I kind of feel like very few people will ever use --quiet, but whatever I guess. It doesn't slow anything down and actually makes sure not to set description arrays and version arrays when the flag is used (thus making it truly faster as it should be).
I appreciate it.
Since I'm so used to one letter arguments, I've tried adding the following:
# Argument parsing
[[ $1 ]] || usage
packageargs=()
while [[ $1 ]]; do
  case "$1" in
    '-S') option=install ;;
    '-Ss') option=search ;;
    '-Ssq'|'-Sqs') option=search ; quiet='1' ;; # <===== ** here **
It works nicely and I didn't notice any speed issues. Is this not acceptable for any reason?

ok

MajorTom · 2010-01-31 20:54:10

Splendid!

jithin1987 · 2010-02-01 09:31:32

Hi.
I would like to make a feature request. When searching packages it would be nice to show a flag whether if its installed or not. yaourt does that. Please consider this if it is not a performance nightmare.

rson451 · 2010-02-01 12:26:40

jithin1987 wrote:

Hi.
I would like to make a feature request. When searching packages it would be nice to show a flag whether if its installed or not. yaourt does that. Please consider this if it is not a performance nightmare.

This has been requested many times in this thread, and it is a performance nightmare.

interskh · 2010-02-01 18:21:42

Great job! packer rocks.
thanks for sharing

MajorTom · 2010-02-02 03:44:31

This was brought up by <Vithon> on packer's AUR page:

Only one suggestion, I'd like a config file (/etc/packer.conf or $HOME/.config/packer/packer.conf or whatever) so you could specify options (i.e., skipping the "Edit PKGBUILD?" by always saying "no").
(...)
I know that, but I don't want to skip the "Proceed with Installation?" dialog.

I actually think it's a good idea to split package installation confirmation and PKGBUILD editing prompts.
Feel free to criticize if I overlooked something but here's my quick hack to address that:

--- packer        2010-01-31 15:49:19.000000000 -0500
+++ packer-mod    2010-02-01 22:17:29.000000000 -0500
@@ -49,6 +49,7 @@
   echo '    --quiet     - only output package name for searches'
   echo '    --ignore    - takes a comma-separated list of packages to ignore'
   echo '    --noconfirm - do not prompt for confirmation'
+  echo '    --noedit    - do not edit PKGBUILD'
   echo '    --auronly   - only do actions for aur'
   echo '    --devel     - update devel packages during -Su'
   echo '    --skipinteg - when using makepkg, do not check md5s'
@@ -274,7 +275,7 @@
 
   # Allow user to edit PKGBUILD
   if [[ -f PKGBUILD ]]; then
-    if ! [[ $noconfirm ]]; then
+    if ! [[ $noedit ]]; then
       echo -n "Edit $1 PKGBUILD with \$EDITOR? [Y/n] "
       read -n 1 answer
       echo
@@ -292,7 +293,7 @@
   unset install
   . PKGBUILD
   if [[ $install ]]; then
-    if ! [[ $noconfirm ]]; then
+    if ! [[ $noedit ]]; then
       echo -n "Edit $install with \$EDITOR? [Y/n] "
       read -n 1 answer
       echo
@@ -470,6 +471,7 @@
     '--quiet') quiet='1' ;;
     '--ignore') ignorearg="$2" ; PACOPTS+=("--ignore" "$2") ; shift ;;
     '--noconfirm') noconfirm='1' PACOPTS+=("--noconfirm");;
+    '--noedit') noedit='1';;
     '--auronly') auronly='1' ;;
     '--devel') devel='1' ;;
     '--skipinteg') MAKEPKGOPTS="--skipinteg" ;;

keenerd · 2010-02-02 04:39:37

There is one thing that I will still use yaourt for. Before installing, Yaourt echos out all the package comments. It is still faster to check yaourt then it is to fire up a web browser. It is easy enough to extract the messages, but involves fragile and messy regex. Not fun. Maybe just the last few, which are newer than the package?

axel668 · 2010-02-02 07:57:40

Tried it, love it ! Had no idea that AUR can be so fast !! Thanks to bruenig for the great work !!!

That's only me, but I usually EITHER want to install new stuff OR check if I already got something,
so pacman -Q packagename is getting the job done for me, checking if something is installed

MajorTom · 2010-02-02 15:55:54

axel668 wrote:

Tried it, love it ! Had no idea that AUR can be so fast !! Thanks to bruenig for the great work !!!
That's only me, but I usually EITHER want to install new stuff OR check if I already got something,
so pacman -Q packagename is getting the job done for me, checking if something is installed

Try pacman -Qm.
You may also want to take a look at aurcheck.

bruenig · 2010-02-02 16:47:30

Added --noedit and also changed color of edit message.

Arch Linux

#226 2010-01-29 20:13:31

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

#227 2010-01-29 21:31:57

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

#228 2010-01-29 22:18:39

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

#229 2010-01-30 05:46:21

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

#230 2010-01-30 18:15:07

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

#231 2010-01-30 19:28:45

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

#232 2010-01-30 20:04:09

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

#233 2010-01-30 20:31:14

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

#234 2010-01-30 21:07:23

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

#235 2010-01-30 22:27:51

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

#236 2010-01-31 03:30:00

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

#237 2010-01-31 05:47:35

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

#238 2010-01-31 07:41:25

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

#239 2010-01-31 09:26:58

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

#240 2010-01-31 17:02:00

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

#241 2010-01-31 18:06:34

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

#242 2010-01-31 20:54:10

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

#243 2010-02-01 09:31:32

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

#244 2010-02-01 12:26:40

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

#245 2010-02-01 18:21:42

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

#246 2010-02-02 03:44:31

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

#247 2010-02-02 04:39:37

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

#248 2010-02-02 07:57:40

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

#249 2010-02-02 15:55:54

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

#250 2010-02-02 16:47:30

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

Board footer