On Fri 25 Jun 2010 09:18 +1000, Allan McRae wrote: > On 25/06/10 02:58, Loui Chang wrote: > >On Thu 24 Jun 2010 18:28 +0200, Cedric Staniewski wrote: > >>On 17.06.2010 17:09, Loui Chang wrote: > >>>On Fri 18 Jun 2010 00:30 +1000, Allan McRae wrote: > >>>>I think I have found the issue here. We obviously have a NOPASSWD > >>>>entry in our sudoers file so "sudo -l" does not require a password. > >>>> > >>>>So the bug is confirmed. However the fix is not fully functional as > >>>>if I have sudo installed but can not use it for pacman, then I can > >>>>no longer fall back to using "su -c". I'd choose excess password > >>>>typing over functionality loss. > >>> > >>>Why not just take sudo and asroot out of the equation and treat makepkg > >>>as a real non-handholding executable? > >> > >>I'd like to add that "sudo -l" was never meant as hand-holding. The > >>intention was to support pacman-wrappers/replacements that aren't > >>supposed to be run as root because they have their own logic to call > >>pacman as root. The most prominent example would be yaourt, I guess. > >>But since this is broken due to the 'su -c' patch, I'm fine with > >>removing it again. > > > >Yeah it just kind of bothers me that makepkg is doing all these > >auxiliary functions like package installation, uninstallation, and > >permissions managment. It has lost its focus. > > You know that dependency installation etc was a very, very early > feature so how can makepkg have "lost its focus"?
You're right. I should say that it lacks focus. > >I think those things are better placed in outside scripts (like yaourt). > >It almost seems like the only thing stopping it from becoming another > >yaourt is that we've dubbed the AUR as untrusted. > > So you use makepkg to update your system? > > Seriously, if you are recommending that automatic dependency is > removed from makepkg, you need to go away, do some more packaging > and then reevaluate your opinion. Yes I am recommending that it be -moved- from makepkg, but how does that mean I need to go away? I never said that it is unneccessary. I just believe the auxiliary functions should be moved into other scripts. I hardly need to do any packaging to see the flaws in the AUR, aurtools (defunct), and devtools. What makes makepkg the exception? I don't understand how my opinion on the design of the tools would be so dramatically changed whether I've made 10 packages, or 100. At least you could say "patches welcome". I guess that wouldn't be of much use though, because you've already completely dismissed my comments. Sorry. I didn't mean to offend your own opinions.
