Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: AUR does not allow Artix-specific packages. Can we have an Artix-AUR? (Read 1669 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

AUR does not allow Artix-specific packages. Can we have an Artix-AUR?

Ahoj,

I noticed that on the AUR some -nosystemd packages, that were made specifically for Artix, 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 packageswith the following comment:
Quote from: MarsSeed
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.

So, it seems the AUR does not accept packages that are Artix-specific in a way that they cannot be installed on an Arch system.

So, do we have or can set up something like a "Artix User Repository" (AxUR), so that it is easy for users to submit their Artix specific packages as easy as to submit to the AUR?

I also read in the above comment from "MarsSeed" that "Artix [...] their repos are open to hosting even -git packages.". 
Does Artix has repos where users can upload packages in an AUR manner?

Regards!

Re: AUR does not allow Artix-specific packages. Can we have an Artix-AUR?

Reply #1 –
I also recently encountered it with noudev packages
ARMtix

Re: AUR does not allow Artix-specific packages. Can we have an Artix-AUR?

Reply #2 –
I don't know for certain, but I think anyone can flag packages - that might not represent "official" policy, it could just be that user trying to cause trouble. An Arch / systemd fan applied for the Artix wikipedia page to be deleted for some reason a while ago, but it wasn't deleted after the request was reviewed. So don't fold yet, argue your case and see what the decision is first. After all, Artix devs and users often contribute in ways that help Arch too, it isn't just a one way relationship.
Artix has no user accessible repos as far as I know from previous discussions - you could make a PKGBUILD and host it on your own git* type site and tell people about it here I suppose. Or possibly someone would add your package to the repos by request.
Incidentally, the source code for the AUR is opensource, it would be possible to use this to make a clone website if it was really required, so long as it didn't have too many packages or too much user traffic then it could potentially be hosted by free online server space providers.

Re: AUR does not allow Artix-specific packages. Can we have an Artix-AUR?

Reply #3 –
Quote from: ####### – on
so long as it didn't have too many packages or too much user traffic then it could potentially be hosted by free online server space providers.
Space/ traffic I can provide, but I would not dare to maintain the infrastructure. Maybe the people power to properly maintain the infrastructure would be more the bottleneck?

And then we would need Artix AUR wrappers which also include those repositories; so that stuff like yay -Ss <searchstring> and yay -Su works also with the AxUR.

Regards!

Re: AUR does not allow Artix-specific packages. Can we have an Artix-AUR?

Reply #4 –
Quote from: dreieck – on
So, it seems the AUR does not accept packages that are Artix-specific in a way that they cannot be installed on an Arch system.
Playing devils advocate you can't blame them.
It's the "Arch User repository" not the "Any-old-arch-alike User repository"

The idea is that if a package is on the AUR it's dependencies will be available in the Arch repos or the AUR.

An Artix User Repository would be nice but any AUR (AxUR) helpers would need modifying if AxUR was to be of any more use than just hosting the build files on github or the like.

Re: AUR does not allow Artix-specific packages. Can we have an Artix-AUR?

Reply #5 –
I did download the AUR source code when this subject came up before out of general interest, it seems to be constructed so you can easily create your own instance by adding your own URL's, and then updated as new versions are released. I expect this facility is mainly used for development and testing. So it wouldn't be as difficult as it might seem. It would be easier still to use the existing AUR though! For AUR helpers, if it was a complete clone of the AUR then it might take little more than adding the new URL to search - if not, yes, a much more difficult problem.

Re: AUR does not allow Artix-specific packages. Can we have an Artix-AUR?

Reply #6 –
Quote from: dreieck – on
Ahoj,

I noticed that on the AUR some -nosystemd packages, that were made specifically for Artix, 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 packageswith the following comment:
Quote from: MarsSeed
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.

Regards!


This reasoning is bullshit. Arch ships with systemd, but you can do whatever you want with it after you install it. This includes removing systemd and replacing it with whatever you like. By this logic elogind, seatd and other alternatives should be completely removed not just from the AUR but from the Arch repos too. By this logic, Arch should force developers to rewrite wayland compositors so that seatd isn't needed because they already have logind. What is it about these RTFM Arch people that stops them from reading their own f*cking manual?

Re: AUR does not allow Artix-specific packages. Can we have an Artix-AUR?

Reply #7 –
Quote from: andyscott – on
[What is it about these RTFM Arch people that stops them from reading their own f*cking manual?
The arch crowd have always been myway or the highway nasties. Deviation from the one true faith is not allowed.

Re: AUR does not allow Artix-specific packages. Can we have an Artix-AUR?

Reply #8 –
Quote from: andyscott – on
This reasoning is bullshit. Arch ships with systemd, but you can do whatever you want with it after you install it. This includes removing systemd and replacing it with whatever you like.

The OP specifically stated "some -nosystemd packages, that were made specifically for Artix"

Why should a different Distro have to host Artix user PKGBUILD's ?

If you want to start from a base Arch install and then create a few AUR PKGBUILD's to replace systemd with another init, which deal with the needed replaces= & conflicts=, that is a separate argument.

But this is about packages which do not and are not intended to work on an Arch install.
 

Re: AUR does not allow Artix-specific packages. Can we have an Artix-AUR?

Reply #9 –
Quote from: andyscott – on
By this logic elogind, seatd and other alternatives should be completely removed not just from the AUR but from the Arch repos too.
I cannot follow you with this argument. 
Arch's extra/seatd does not conflict with any package in Arch's core repository, and aur/elogind-git has a pending request, maybe deletion?

So it looks that things are consistent and your argument here does not buy.

But in general, I agree with you, that
Quote from: andyscott – on
Arch ships with systemd, but you can do whatever you want with it after you install it.
should be supported by Arch.

I assume that Arch assumes (and requires, to be an "Arch" system) that all packages from the core repository are installed always. (I faintly remember having read something somewhere, that packages from core are always assumed to be installed and thus should not be mentioned in the depends or makedepends arrays of PKGBUILDs.)

Quote from: andyscott – on
By this logic, Arch should force developers to rewrite wayland compositors so that seatd isn't needed because they already have logind.
I also cannot follow that argument. 
The logic I cited is that packages that conflict (directly or indirectly) which packages in the core repository are not allowed. Packages that need extra packages that duplicate functionality of core packages, but do not conflict with them, do not fall under this.

Regards!

Re: AUR does not allow Artix-specific packages. Can we have an Artix-AUR?

Reply #10 –
Quote from: dreieck – on
The logic I cited is that packages that conflict (directly or indirectly) which packages in the core repository are not allowed.
Regards!

Where exactly is that stated? Their precious wiki makes no mention of it.

Quote from: gripped – on
If you want to start from a base Arch install and then create a few AUR PKGBUILD's to replace systemd with another init, which deal with the needed replaces= & conflicts=, that is a separate argument.

If an update to the PKGBUILD would make it appropriate for the AUR then the person who submitted the deletion request is not following their own rules. There is no section for implications, inferences, or speculation about the intent of the package in their precious wiki.

Edit: I want to be clear that I am being deliberately pedantic the way I expect to be treated in the Arch forums - after years of being told to RTFM I will absolutely jump at the chance to impugn an Arch user who doesn't follow the rules

Re: AUR does not allow Artix-specific packages. Can we have an Artix-AUR?

Reply #11 –
@andyscott
  • Would I prefer it if Arch had never switched to systemd ? Yes.
  • Given the switch would I prefer it if they'd made it easy to use alternative inits ? Yes.
1. They did
2. They didn't.
It's history. It's why we are here.
Not worth getting angry about.
And as it's their AUR they can run it how they see fit.

Re: AUR does not allow Artix-specific packages. Can we have an Artix-AUR?

Reply #12 –
I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on whether history should evoke an emotional response. Although while we're on the subject I think we should be accurate that there was no "they" - the decision to switch to systemd was made by a single person without consulting the community. At least Debian had a damn vote.

It is the Arch User Repository and they can and do run it how they see fit. It's precisely why they have the AUR submission guidelines, and it's why they have the AUR maintainer guidelines. The deletion request does not follow those guidelines. What was the point of writing all that  up and harassing people about it if they're just going to do whatever they want on a whim?

Re: AUR does not allow Artix-specific packages. Can we have an Artix-AUR?

Reply #13 –
Quote from: andyscott – on
Edit: I want to be clear that I am being deliberately pedantic the way I expect to be treated in the Arch forums - after years of being told to RTFM I will absolutely jump at the chance to impugn an Arch user who doesn't follow the rules
Actually, I was asking back via email
Quote from: dreieck
Can you please provide me the rule that states that?

I have read https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/AUR_submission_guidelines
and do not find that rule there.
and in that email I also mentioned the discussion here for reference.

Quote from: andyscott – on
Quote from: dreieck – on
The logic I cited is that packages that conflict (directly or indirectly) which packages in the core repository are not allowed.
Regards!

Where exactly is that stated? Their precious wiki makes no mention of it.
It was the argument given in the deletion request message.

Re: AUR does not allow Artix-specific packages. Can we have an Artix-AUR?

Reply #14 –
Quote from: dreieck – on
It was the argument given in the deletion request message.

That's fair, I realize I was asking some pointed questions and I don't expect you to defend the person that wants your packages deleted. In the meantime I'll take some deep breaths. I don't know... if I'm repeatedly told to RTFM don't be surprised when I memorize it then quote it back ;D (again not directed at you personally).