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

anonymous_user · 2010-02-17 15:25:52

What happens if you change line 284 to just "$EDITOR PKGBUILD"?

sHyLoCk · 2010-02-17 15:56:08

That's not a solution I'm looking for.
If I do packer -S packer the code will change again, so I want to find out what's causing this error externally instead of hacking the script.

handy · 2010-02-17 16:02:58

In /etc/profile

export EDITOR="nano"

Perhaps if the inverted commas were missing it caused the fault?

extofme · 2010-02-18 01:47:10

anonymous_user wrote:

What happens if you change line 284 to just "$EDITOR PKGBUILD"?

can't do that, would be the equivalent of writing:

$ PKGBUILD
bash: PKGBUILD: command not found

bash is strictly text replacement, the ":-vi" part means that if EDITOR is undefined, use text "vi" instead.

sHyLoCk wrote:

That's not a solution I'm looking for.
If I do packer -S packer the code will change again, so I want to find out what's causing this error externally instead of hacking the script.

sounds like either your login scripts are not being executed at all, or the EDITOR variable is being unset later on. look at /etc/bash.bashrc, /etc/bash.bashrc.local, /etc/profile, /etc/profile.bash, /etc/profile.d/*, ~/.bashrc, ~/.profile; you could add some code to write to a temp file to assert the value of EDITOR along the way.

Arm-the-Homeless · 2010-02-18 02:23:24

Solution:

sudo ln -s /usr/bin/nano /usr/bin/vi

sHyLoCk · 2010-02-18 02:42:49

Arm-the-Homeless wrote:

Solution:

sudo ln -s /usr/bin/nano /usr/bin/vi

Check Post #294
I'm faster than you

botzoboy · 2010-02-18 09:11:25

I tried to put this

export EDITOR=nano

in ~bashrc without succes. But in this morning after I started my laptop I found that Nano is working. So after you put

export EDITOR=nano

in ~bashrc restart your computer. I hope this may help you.

kalpik · 2010-02-18 09:20:08

OR, just do "source .bashrc"

tjwoosta · 2010-02-18 18:25:52

Sorry if this has been mentioned, I skimmed through the thread a didnt see anything but then again it is a long one. Anyway is there any way to make packer show me which of the packages are installed when I do a search?

Like if I do a search for vim. With yaourt it will search vim and put "INSTALLED" next to all of the packages which are already installed. With packer it doest show this.

Last edited by tjwoosta (2010-02-18 18:26:25)

drcouzelis · 2010-02-18 18:53:20

tjwoosta wrote:

Sorry if this has been mentioned, I skimmed through the thread a didnt see anything but then again it is a long one. Anyway is there any way to make packer show me which of the packages are installed when I do a search?
Like if I do a search for vim. With yaourt it will search vim and put "INSTALLED" next to all of the packages which are already installed. With packer it doest show this.

Yeah, it's been talked about kind of a lot. No one's really found a way to do it really quickly, but some people still have some ideas about ways to do it.

milomak · 2010-02-18 20:18:48

the one thing i love about yaourt is that it tells you which package is installed. which is really important, i think, when you are playing in the aur space. The Out of Date flag is also very useful.

Last edited by milomak (2010-02-18 20:19:07)

drcouzelis · 2010-02-18 22:11:59

milomak wrote:

the one thing i love about yaourt is that it tells you which package is installed. which is really important, i think, when you are playing in the aur space. The Out of Date flag is also very useful.

Oh no, it's like this thread is going in circles!

Here is the official response from the author: http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php? … 07#p691807 You can follow the thread from there to learn more about the problem.

MajorTom · 2010-02-19 01:09:17

The 'installed' status is one of the first things noticed when switching to packer from yaourt. It's understandable.
I suppose to make everyone happy Matt would need to include something like --installed switch to do this. Then, those who don't mind the performance hit would simply alias packer='packer --installed'.

Bregol · 2010-02-19 17:21:43

Or make it a -v flag or to give verbose search output (installed, aur votes, out-of-date). That way you can do a fast search like it does now, or you can turn up the verbosity and get more search info at the cost of some speed. Not to keep this thread going in circles, but I agree that an optional flag would be the way to keep the ability for fast searches, while at the same time drawing in people like me who have a hard time giving up yaourt because of the extra info it gives.

extofme · 2010-02-19 18:37:52

patch to add [INSTALLED] to -Ss output:

--- a/packer 2010-02-20 03:52:54.652968727 -0600
+++ b/packer  2010-02-20 03:19:34.566502119 -0600
@@ -640,11 +640,6 @@
     description=( $(grep -F '"Description":"' "$parsefile" | sed -e 's/^"Description":"//' -e 's/"$/ /') )
   fi
   aurtotal="${#aurname[@]}"
+  while read x; do
+    eval ${x}
+  done < <({ tr " " "\n" | grep -n -f <(pacman -Qq | sed -e "s,.*,^\\0\$,g") |
+             sed -e "s,^\([0-9]*\):\(.*\),aur_inst[\\1]=\" [INSTALLED]\",g"; } \
+             <<<${aurname[*]})

   # Echo out the -Ss formatted package information
   if [[ $option = search ]]; then
@@ -654,7 +649,7 @@
       done
     else
       for ((i=0 ; i<$aurtotal ; i++)); do
-        echo -e "${COLOR3}aur/${COLOR1}${aurname[$i]} ${COLOR2}${version[$i]}${ENDCOLOR}\n    ${description[$i]}"
+        echo -e "${COLOR3}aur/${COLOR1}${aurname[$i]} ${COLOR2}${version[$i]}${ENDCOLOR}${aur_inst[${i}+1]}\n    ${description[$i]}"
       done
     fi
   else

this isn't the best way, and prob has flaws, but it only queries pacman once... there is no reason to query pacman over and over for each match. the better way would probably be to use the "comm" command along with some changes elsewhere. however, this way creates a truncated version of the ${aurname} array, where the index is +1 to ${aurname}... this means you dont even have to test for it when actually outputting.

EXAMPLE:

$ packer -Ss --auronly btrfs                      
aur/btrfs-progs 0.19-4                                                   
    Btrfs filesystem utilities                                           
aur/btrfs-git 20081227-1                                                 
    A Checksumming Copy on Write Filesystem                              
aur/btrfs-progs-git 20081227-1 [INSTALLED]                               
    Btrfs filesystem utilities                                           
aur/mkinitcpio-btrfs 0.1-3 [INSTALLED]                                   
    Extensive hook for operations on a BTRFS based root device

[UPDATE] bug in regex would have quietly failed after 9 matches. did away with second grep call; use ${aurname} directly instead

Last edited by extofme (2010-02-21 00:22:40)

r6 · 2010-02-19 21:33:50

extofme, you can use pacman -Qq instead of pacman -Q | cut -d " ".

The patch works great and should be implemented in my opinion.

Last edited by r6 (2010-02-19 21:35:00)

bruenig · 2010-02-19 23:15:13

Ok guys. I will add [installed] support and then see just how much slower it really is and paste the results. Then you other hackers can look at the code and make it faster and we will see if it ever gets to a point where it isn't a disaster. (by the way, pacman output never tells us whether packages are installed, and no one seems to have been messed up by that!)

extofme, that is some crazy shit you have hacked together there. Could you tell me if it works on cases like this:

Let's say I the package is 'vim' and I have 'vim-foo' installed. Will that be counted as a match or not? This is something I kept having problems with when trying to do big mass matching like that.

Last edited by bruenig (2010-02-19 23:18:36)

drcouzelis · 2010-02-19 23:19:57

I think I found a bug in the "installed" patch.

I tried the patch and the patch to the patch. It tells me what packages I have installed from the AUR, but not from the main repositories.

extofme · 2010-02-19 23:30:24

r6 wrote:

... you can use pacman -Qq instead of pacman -Q | cut -d " ".

right on, thanx updated

drcouzelis wrote:

I tried the patch and the patch to the patch. It tells me what packages I have installed from the AUR, but not from the main repositories.

your prob right. that was just some crackerjack shiz i put together in 5 min. i just searched for "aur/"; you would need more changes somewhere else for that.

bruenig wrote:

Let's say I the package is 'vim' and I have 'vim-foo' installed. Will that be counted as a match or not?

yeah it handles that. i did have that problem, but this part:

... <(pacman -Qq | sed -e "s,.*,^\\0\$,g") ...

changes the regexes sent to the outside grep from:

vim
vim-foo

to:

^vim$
^vim-foo$

where ^ matches [BEGIN LINE] and $ matches [END LINE]

Last edited by extofme (2010-02-20 09:14:03)

extofme · 2010-02-20 09:57:57

for the sake of thoroughness, there was a bug and it should be faster/cleaner now. see [UPDATE] @ end of post

kaivalagi · 2010-02-20 10:21:55

Can this [installed] status code be initiated by way of a switch, so if you don't want it to slow things down then don't ask packer to output it? There would be an extra check for the switch worst case...Just a thought

Edit: Just saw this:

Bregol wrote:

Or make it a -v flag or to give verbose search output (installed, aur votes, out-of-date). That way you can do a fast search like it does now, or you can turn up the verbosity and get more search info at the cost of some speed. Not to keep this thread going in circles, but I agree that an optional flag would be the way to keep the ability for fast searches, while at the same time drawing in people like me who have a hard time giving up yaourt because of the extra info it gives.

+1

Last edited by kaivalagi (2010-02-20 10:24:07)

venky80 · 2010-02-21 00:07:03

is this hosted in any repository?

MajorTom · 2010-02-21 21:04:26

venky80 wrote:

is this hosted in any repository?

I don't think it is but there really is no need for that:

$ wget http://aur.archlinux.org/packages/packe … r/PKGBUILD
$ makepkg
$ pacman -U packer*

kaivalagi · 2010-02-23 08:43:26

venky80 wrote:

is this hosted in any repository?

If you don't have an existing tool for AUR installs then follow MajorTom's instructions, if you have yaourt or similar then you can installed packer using it e.g. "yaourt -S packer"

Don't forget to reinstall packer from time to time also, just run "packer -S packer"

Last edited by kaivalagi (2010-02-23 08:44:30)

anonymous_user · 2010-02-24 03:07:29

When installing a package from the AUR, would it be possible to show the sizes of the package and dependencies?

Last edited by anonymous_user (2010-02-24 03:07:46)

Arch Linux

#301 2010-02-17 15:25:52

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

#302 2010-02-17 15:56:08

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

#303 2010-02-17 16:02:58

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

#304 2010-02-18 01:47:10

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

#305 2010-02-18 02:23:24

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

#306 2010-02-18 02:42:49

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

#307 2010-02-18 09:11:25

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

#308 2010-02-18 09:20:08

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

#309 2010-02-18 18:25:52

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

#310 2010-02-18 18:53:20

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

#311 2010-02-18 20:18:48

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

#312 2010-02-18 22:11:59

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

#313 2010-02-19 01:09:17

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

#314 2010-02-19 17:21:43

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

#315 2010-02-19 18:37:52

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

#316 2010-02-19 21:33:50

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

#317 2010-02-19 23:15:13

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

#318 2010-02-19 23:19:57

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

#319 2010-02-19 23:30:24

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

#320 2010-02-20 09:57:57

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

#321 2010-02-20 10:21:55

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

#322 2010-02-21 00:07:03

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

#323 2010-02-21 21:04:26

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

#324 2010-02-23 08:43:26

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

#325 2010-02-24 03:07:29

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

Board footer