Can we have optional deps on AUR packages?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
5 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Can we have optional deps on AUR packages?

Sven-Hendrik Haase
Moving this discussion from aur-general. I posed the question:

I just wanted to clear this up with the other TUs: Is it ok for [community]
packages to have optional deps on AUR packages or not?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Can we have optional deps on AUR packages?

arch dev mailing list
On 19.04.2017 21:50, Sven-Hendrik Haase wrote:
> I just wanted to clear this up with the other TUs: Is it ok for [community]
> packages to have optional deps on AUR packages or not?

We generally tell people that we do not support AUR packages and because
of this there are no AUR (download/install) helpers in the repos. If you
start adding such dependencies that goes against this idea of separation.

Actually I can't even think of a way to explain why AUR helpers and AUR
packages are not supported while at the same time telling people to
install them. This just doesn't fit.

Just pull the packages into the repos or don't include the deps.

Florian


signature.asc (875 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Can we have optional deps on AUR packages?

Giancarlo Razzolini-2
Em abril 19, 2017 17:47 Florian Pritz via arch-dev-public escreveu:
>
> Just pull the packages into the repos or don't include the deps.
>

I also think we shouldn't depend, even if it's an optional dependency, on AUR
packages.

In ansible's case, since those two are python libraries, I think it's ok to bring
them in to [community]. If you want, I can help co-maintain ansible (and deps),
since we depend on it for the infrastructure repo.

Cheers,
Giancarlo Razzolini

attachment0 (887 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Can we have optional deps on AUR packages?

Jelle van der Waa-2
On 04/19/17 at 11:18pm, Giancarlo Razzolini wrote:
> Em abril 19, 2017 17:47 Florian Pritz via arch-dev-public escreveu:
> >
> > Just pull the packages into the repos or don't include the deps.
> >
>
> I also think we shouldn't depend, even if it's an optional dependency, on AUR
> packages.

As I already said in aur-general, I agree that we should keep this
separate to avoid confusion.

--
Jelle van der Waa

signature.asc (499 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Can we have optional deps on AUR packages?

Christian Rebischke-2
In reply to this post by Sven-Hendrik Haase
On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 09:50:54PM +0200, Sven-Hendrik Haase wrote:
> Moving this discussion from aur-general. I posed the question:
>
> I just wanted to clear this up with the other TUs: Is it ok for [community]
> packages to have optional deps on AUR packages or not?

I would definitly pull all optional deps to [community].

There are several reasons for this:

1. Good PKGBUILD quality, because the maintainer of the package that has
the opt-dep controls also the opt-dep in community and can enforce a
good PKGBUILD.

2. Less Confusion. If we start adding AUR optional-dependencies to our
official packages this would confuse people, even if we declare it in
the PKGBUILD.

3. Control. If the maintainer is busy or in vacation another maintainer
of [community] can takeover his job for some days/weeks, without moving
package ownership like we often have in the AUR.

4. More Security. AUR packages mostly don't include all security
features.

5. Time. The user doesn't need to recompile it by theyself.

6. It's a clear statement that we don't support the AUR.

7. It's easier for the user.


Best regards,

chris

signature.asc (849 bytes) Download Attachment