AUR and deb or other precompiled stuff

06-04-2010, 07:36 AM

> On 06/04/2010 03:28 AM, Ike Devolder wrote:
> > in some recent updates of some packages you see more and more deb's or rpms
> > or whatever being extracted and repacked for arch
> >
> > is there some aur guideline about this, i really don't like this development
> > because why not take advantage of our bleeding edge gcc power
> >
> > if the source is there, why not build from it?
> >
> > in cases like opera it is understandable because it is not open source, but
> > in some other cases like kalsamix i find it very disturbing
> >
> > maybe some other comments about this ?
> >
Excerpts from Nathan O.'s message of 2010-06-04 10:29:56 +0200:
> First I just wanted to clear this, I would normally build from source,
> but if it doesn't work I will attempt at a deb package, but even that
> doesn't work
>
What about using debian patches? I don't know why they aren't upstream
in the first place, but...

At the moment I kind of understand it that alternatives to compiling are
sought. gcc4.5.0 seems to not only introduce new warnings and errors but
also bugs. I helped yesterday to hopefully nail a bad optimisation
related one. Some call it insane to build a distro on a *.0 gcc.
--
Regards,
Philipp

--
"Wir stehen selbst enttÃ¤uscht und sehn betroffen / Den Vorhang zu und alle Fragen offen." Bertolt Brecht, Der gute Mensch von Sezuan

Fri Jun 4 11:30:01 2010
Return-path: <aur-general-bounces@archlinux.org>
Envelope-to: tom@linux-archive.org
Delivery-date: Fri, 04 Jun 2010 11:01:37 +0300
Received: from gerolde.archlinux.org ([66.211.214.132]:39237 helo=archlinux.org)
by s2.java-tips.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69)
(envelope-from <aur-general-bounces@archlinux.org>)
id 1OKRqT-0002u4-Eq
for tom@linux-archive.org; Fri, 04 Jun 2010 11:01:37 +0300
Received: from gudrun.archlinux.org (gudrun.archlinux.org [66.211.214.131])
by archlinux.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF05B90209;
Fri, 4 Jun 2010 04:39:04 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from archlinux.org (gerolde.archlinux.org [66.211.214.132])
by gudrun.archlinux.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1774070047
for <aur-general@archlinux.org>; Fri, 4 Jun 2010 04:39:03 -0400 (EDT)
Received-SPF: pass (mail.ru: 94.100.176.48 is authorized to use
'hokum@mail.ru' in 'mfrom' identity (mechanism
'ip4:94.100.176.0/20' matched)) receiver=gerolde.archlinux.org;
identity=mailfrom; envelope-from="hokum@mail.ru";
helo=mx34.mail.ru; client-ipï¿½.100.176.48
Received: from mx34.mail.ru (mx34.mail.ru [94.100.176.48])
by archlinux.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EA897901FE
for <aur-general@archlinux.org>; Fri, 4 Jun 2010 04:39:02 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [89.189.191.20] (portR325 helo=[10.120.10.100])
by mx34.mail.ru with asmtp (TLSv1:CAMELLIA256-SHA:256)
id 1OKSQg-000Iff-00
for aur-general@archlinux.org; Fri, 04 Jun 2010 12:39:02 +0400
Message-ID: <4C08BB5F.3090201@mail.ru>
Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2010 15:37:51 +0700
From: =?UTF-8?B?0JDQu9C10LrRgdCw0L3QtNGAINCk0YDQvtC70YPRiNC60L jQvQ==? <hokum@mail.ru>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US;
rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100330 Shredder/3.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Discussion about the Arch User Repository (AUR)"
<aur-general@archlinux.org>
References: <AANLkTikqoeceV_GNKgU62uU2krqaTlZJCAq_wnPHknb9@mai l.gmail.com>
<4C08BA75.8090606@archlinux.org>
In-Reply-To: <4C08BA75.8090606@archlinux.org>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------070703050105060501040606"
X-Mras: Ok
X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.11
Subject: Re: [aur-general] AUR and deb or other precompiled stuff
X-BeenThere: aur-general@archlinux.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11
Precedence: list
Reply-To: "Discussion about the Arch User Repository (AUR)"
<aur-general@archlinux.org>
List-Id: "Discussion about the Arch User Repository (AUR)"
<aur-general.archlinux.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailman.archlinux.org/mailman/options/aur-general>,
<mailto:aur-general-request@archlinux.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general>
List-Post: <mailto:aur-general@archlinux.org>
List-Help: <mailto:aur-general-request@archlinux.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://mailman.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/aur-general>,
<mailto:aur-general-request@archlinux.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: aur-general-bounces@archlinux.org
Errors-To: aur-general-bounces@archlinux.org

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------070703050105060501040606
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Well, may I ask a question in this context?
Many Arch opponents say we have a very limited number of binary packages
and a lot of it in unsuported. I'm looking at my desktop box and really
can't deny it. I have a lot of software from AUR.
Why this happens? Very limited resources, few TU's, strict official
repos policy or what?

Sorry for offtopic, maybe I need to post this on forums?
>> in some recent updates of some packages you see more and more deb's
>> or rpms
>> or whatever being extracted and repacked for arch
>>
>> is there some aur guideline about this, i really don't like this
>> development
>> because why not take advantage of our bleeding edge gcc power
>>
>> if the source is there, why not build from it?
>>
>> in cases like opera it is understandable because it is not open
>> source, but
>> in some other cases like kalsamix i find it very disturbing
>>
>> maybe some other comments about this ?
>>
>
> I agree. Everything should be built from source where possible.
>
> Allan
>
>

--------------070703050105060501040606--

06-04-2010, 08:28 AM

in some recent updates of some packages you see more and more deb's or rpms
or whatever being extracted and repacked for arch

is there some aur guideline about this, i really don't like this development
because why not take advantage of our bleeding edge gcc power

if the source is there, why not build from it?

in cases like opera it is understandable because it is not open source, but
in some other cases like kalsamix i find it very disturbing

maybe some other comments about this ?

06-04-2010, 08:29 AM

First I just wanted to clear this, I would normally build from source,
but if it doesn't work I will attempt at a deb package, but even that
doesn't work

On 06/04/2010 03:28 AM, Ike Devolder wrote:

in some recent updates of some packages you see more and more deb's or rpms
or whatever being extracted and repacked for arch

is there some aur guideline about this, i really don't like this development
because why not take advantage of our bleeding edge gcc power

if the source is there, why not build from it?

in cases like opera it is understandable because it is not open source, but
in some other cases like kalsamix i find it very disturbing

maybe some other comments about this ?

06-04-2010, 08:33 AM

On 04/06/10 18:28, Ike Devolder wrote:

in some recent updates of some packages you see more and more deb's or rpms
or whatever being extracted and repacked for arch

is there some aur guideline about this, i really don't like this development
because why not take advantage of our bleeding edge gcc power

if the source is there, why not build from it?

in cases like opera it is understandable because it is not open source, but
in some other cases like kalsamix i find it very disturbing

maybe some other comments about this ?

I agree. Everything should be built from source where possible.

Allan

06-04-2010, 08:36 AM

Excerpts from Nathan O.'s message of 2010-06-04 10:42:33 +0200:
> @Philipp thanks for giving me the idea, I will see if I can find one,
> though I am not 100% sure I will be able to since it is not actually on
> Debian's site. Somebody built the package for the software author.

Another place to look at is gentoo. They are quite up-to-date as well
and source based, it should be easy to find patches. It's the first
place I look at when hunting for patches.
If it is a gcc 4.5.0 issue then you might have no luck there either.
--
Regards,
Philipp

--
"Wir stehen selbst enttäuscht und sehn betroffen / Den Vorhang zu und alle Fragen offen." Bertolt Brecht, Der gute Mensch von Sezuan

06-04-2010, 08:37 AM

i'm sorry if this is somekind of attack on your effort to keep this packages
up to date

it was just your message about kalsamix that triggered my concern about deb
packages since i saw more of this.

2010/6/4 Nathan O. <ndowens04@gmail.com>

> First I just wanted to clear this, I would normally build from source, but
> if it doesn't work I will attempt at a deb package, but even that doesn't
> work
>
>
> On 06/04/2010 03:28 AM, Ike Devolder wrote:
>
>> in some recent updates of some packages you see more and more deb's or
>> rpms
>> or whatever being extracted and repacked for arch
>>
>> is there some aur guideline about this, i really don't like this
>> development
>> because why not take advantage of our bleeding edge gcc power
>>
>> if the source is there, why not build from it?
>>
>> in cases like opera it is understandable because it is not open source,
>> but
>> in some other cases like kalsamix i find it very disturbing
>>
>> maybe some other comments about this ?
>>
>>
>
>

06-04-2010, 08:39 AM

I understand, and I am not trying to attack either, just wanted to
clarify why I am trying the deb file to attempt to get it to work. See
kamix was the previous version, kalsamix is the updated name version, so
I am trying to get it to work in case something may depend on it or
somebody wants it.

On 06/04/2010 03:37 AM, Ike Devolder wrote:

i'm sorry if this is somekind of attack on your effort to keep this packages
up to date

it was just your message about kalsamix that triggered my concern about deb
packages since i saw more of this.

2010/6/4 Nathan O.<ndowens04@gmail.com>

First I just wanted to clear this, I would normally build from source, but
if it doesn't work I will attempt at a deb package, but even that doesn't
work

On 06/04/2010 03:28 AM, Ike Devolder wrote:

in some recent updates of some packages you see more and more deb's or
rpms
or whatever being extracted and repacked for arch

is there some aur guideline about this, i really don't like this
development
because why not take advantage of our bleeding edge gcc power

if the source is there, why not build from it?

in cases like opera it is understandable because it is not open source,
but
in some other cases like kalsamix i find it very disturbing

maybe some other comments about this ?

06-04-2010, 08:42 AM

@Philipp thanks for giving me the idea, I will see if I can find one,
though I am not 100% sure I will be able to since it is not actually on
Debian's site. Somebody built the package for the software author.

On 06/04/2010 02:36 AM, Philipp Überbacher wrote:

On 06/04/2010 03:28 AM, Ike Devolder wrote:

in some recent updates of some packages you see more and more deb's or rpms
or whatever being extracted and repacked for arch

is there some aur guideline about this, i really don't like this development
because why not take advantage of our bleeding edge gcc power

if the source is there, why not build from it?

in cases like opera it is understandable because it is not open source, but
in some other cases like kalsamix i find it very disturbing

maybe some other comments about this ?

Excerpts from Nathan O.'s message of 2010-06-04 10:29:56 +0200:

First I just wanted to clear this, I would normally build from source,
but if it doesn't work I will attempt at a deb package, but even that
doesn't work

What about using debian patches? I don't know why they aren't upstream
in the first place, but...

At the moment I kind of understand it that alternatives to compiling are
sought. gcc4.5.0 seems to not only introduce new warnings and errors but
also bugs. I helped yesterday to hopefully nail a bad optimisation
related one. Some call it insane to build a distro on a *.0 gcc.

06-04-2010, 08:46 AM

I understand your reason for doing it

and maybe be are some massochists as Philipp says because we're building on
a gcc *.0

but thats the fun of arch ofcourse

2010/6/4 Nathan O. <ndowens04@gmail.com>

> I understand, and I am not trying to attack either, just wanted to clarify
> why I am trying the deb file to attempt to get it to work. See kamix was the
> previous version, kalsamix is the updated name version, so I am trying to
> get it to work in case something may depend on it or somebody wants it.
>
>
> On 06/04/2010 03:37 AM, Ike Devolder wrote:
>
>> i'm sorry if this is somekind of attack on your effort to keep this
>> packages
>> up to date
>>
>> it was just your message about kalsamix that triggered my concern about
>> deb
>> packages since i saw more of this.
>>
>> 2010/6/4 Nathan O.<ndowens04@gmail.com>
>>
>>
>>
>>> First I just wanted to clear this, I would normally build from source,
>>> but
>>> if it doesn't work I will attempt at a deb package, but even that doesn't
>>> work
>>>
>>>
>>> On 06/04/2010 03:28 AM, Ike Devolder wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> in some recent updates of some packages you see more and more deb's or
>>>> rpms
>>>> or whatever being extracted and repacked for arch
>>>>
>>>> is there some aur guideline about this, i really don't like this
>>>> development
>>>> because why not take advantage of our bleeding edge gcc power
>>>>
>>>> if the source is there, why not build from it?
>>>>
>>>> in cases like opera it is understandable because it is not open source,
>>>> but
>>>> in some other cases like kalsamix i find it very disturbing
>>>>
>>>> maybe some other comments about this ?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>

06-04-2010, 08:47 AM

Though I am not sure I am going to have any success with this, every
thing that I attempt and know to try fails.

On 06/04/2010 03:46 AM, Ike Devolder wrote:

I understand your reason for doing it

and maybe be are some massochists as Philipp says because we're building on
a gcc *.0

but thats the fun of arch ofcourse

2010/6/4 Nathan O.<ndowens04@gmail.com>

I understand, and I am not trying to attack either, just wanted to clarify
why I am trying the deb file to attempt to get it to work. See kamix was the
previous version, kalsamix is the updated name version, so I am trying to
get it to work in case something may depend on it or somebody wants it.

On 06/04/2010 03:37 AM, Ike Devolder wrote:

i'm sorry if this is somekind of attack on your effort to keep this
packages
up to date

it was just your message about kalsamix that triggered my concern about
deb
packages since i saw more of this.

2010/6/4 Nathan O.<ndowens04@gmail.com>

First I just wanted to clear this, I would normally build from source,
but
if it doesn't work I will attempt at a deb package, but even that doesn't
work

On 06/04/2010 03:28 AM, Ike Devolder wrote:

in some recent updates of some packages you see more and more deb's or
rpms
or whatever being extracted and repacked for arch

is there some aur guideline about this, i really don't like this
development
because why not take advantage of our bleeding edge gcc power

if the source is there, why not build from it?

in cases like opera it is understandable because it is not open source,
but
in some other cases like kalsamix i find it very disturbing

maybe some other comments about this ?