Re: [aur-general] [AUR4] Single binary package for different architectures

[Eli Schwartz]

On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 5:20 PM, Frederik “Freso” S. Olesen <
freso...@gmail.com> wrote:

> If you build both versions (which is the default for `makepkg` IIRC),
> you will need to delete the downloaded source midway through or makepkg
> will complain that "$pkgname-$pkgver" (x86_64) doesn't match its
> checksum (if it downloaded i686 first).
>

 Why one earth would makepkg *by default* (or ever) build a package for the
wrong $arch ?

-- Eli Schwartz

Re: [aur-general] [AUR4] Single binary package for different architectures

[Johannes Löthberg]

On 07/07, Frederik “Freso” S. Olesen wrote:

Den 26-06-2015 kl. 02:21 skrev Hugo Osvaldo Barrera:

On Thu, Jun 25, 2015, at 12:50, Maxime Gauduin wrote:

On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 5:27 PM, Doug Newgard 
wrote:

On Thu, 25 Jun 2015 12:15:01 -0300
Hugo Osvaldo Barrera  wrote:

Why not just name them the same locally?


That creates problems verifying the checksums.



What problems exactly?


If you build both versions (which is the default for `makepkg` IIRC),
you will need to delete the downloaded source midway through or makepkg
will complain that "$pkgname-$pkgver" (x86_64) doesn't match its
checksum (if it downloaded i686 first).



No, it does not, the 'issue' only applies to making sourceballs and 
verifying them.


--
Sincerely,
 Johannes Löthberg
 PGP Key ID: 0x50FB9B273A9D0BB5
 https://theos.kyriasis.com/~kyrias/


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [aur-general] [AUR4] Single binary package for different architectures

[Frederik “Freso” S . Olesen]

Den 26-06-2015 kl. 02:21 skrev Hugo Osvaldo Barrera:
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2015, at 12:50, Maxime Gauduin wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 5:27 PM, Doug Newgard 
>> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 25 Jun 2015 12:15:01 -0300
>>> Hugo Osvaldo Barrera  wrote:
 Why not just name them the same locally?
>>>
>>> That creates problems verifying the checksums.
>>>
> 
> What problems exactly?

If you build both versions (which is the default for `makepkg` IIRC),
you will need to delete the downloaded source midway through or makepkg
will complain that "$pkgname-$pkgver" (x86_64) doesn't match its
checksum (if it downloaded i686 first).

Some people also utilise the $SRCDEST setting in makepkg.conf to avoid
having to download source files over and over, which is useful if you
need to build the same package for several machines. If you happen to
have machines of multiple architectures, you will also have to keep
deleting the source file to allow makepkg to fetch the architecture one
for the machine you're currently building on/for.

There are probably more cases where this would clock in. The summary is
what Doug originally wrote though. Just Don't Do It™.

-- 
Namasté,
Frederik “Freso” S. Olesen 
AUR: https://aur.archlinux.org/account/Freso
Wiki: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/User:Freso



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [aur-general] [AUR4] Single binary package for different architectures

[Hugo Osvaldo Barrera]

On Thu, Jun 25, 2015, at 12:50, Maxime Gauduin wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 5:27 PM, Doug Newgard 
> wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, 25 Jun 2015 12:15:01 -0300
> > Hugo Osvaldo Barrera  wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Why not just name them the same locally?
> > >
> > > source_i686=("$pkgname-$pkgver::
> > http://example.com/release-${pkgver}-i386.tar.gz";)
> > > md5sums_i686=('ffeeddccbbaa99887766554433221100')
> > > source_x86_64=("$pkgname-$pkgver::
> > http://example.com/release-${pkgver}-x86_64.tar.gz";)
> > > md5sums_x86_64=('00112233445566778899aabbccddeeff')
> > >
> > > package() {
> > >   tar xf $pkgname-$pkgver
> > >   ...
> > > }
> > >
> >
> > That creates problems verifying the checksums.
> >

What problems exactly?

> 
> Exactly, read a couple emails back. Also why would you want to decompress
> the source tarball in the package function? The source for your
> particular
> arch, and only that one, is already decompressed by bsdtar [...]

I'm aware of this, it was an awful example really. the important bit was
really that you wouldn't need to deal with the discrepancies manually.

-- 
Hugo Osvaldo Barrera

Re: [aur-general] [AUR4] Single binary package for different architectures

[Ralf Mardorf]

On Thu, 25 Jun 2015 20:40:13 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
>Sorry, I didn't follow the whole thread, so perhaps this is useless,
>but maybe not:
>
>https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/pa/palemoon-bin/PKGBUILD

My apologies, now I read the whole thread. I should have done it before
sending my mail.

Re: [aur-general] [AUR4] Single binary package for different architectures

[Ralf Mardorf]

Sorry, I didn't follow the whole thread, so perhaps this is useless,
but maybe not:

https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/pa/palemoon-bin/PKGBUILD

Re: [aur-general] [AUR4] Single binary package for different architectures

[Mauro Santos]

On 25-06-2015 18:07, Patrick Burroughs (Celti) wrote:
> 
> A quick google and some personal testing showed me that the former
> doesn't work and the latter does, because bash doesn't interpolate
> variables in the middle of another variable like that; you need to use
> eval to make a second pass for it to work. Rather hacky, though, and I
> see no point in using it over the conditional construct proposed
> earlier — I just hate to see a suggestion that doesn't work out there.
> 

Given that I was the one that suggested something that doesn't work
without properly trying it first - sorry about that, how about this one:

source_i686=("source1_i686.tar.gz" "source2_i686.tar.gz")
md5sums_i686=('md5sum1_i686' 'md5sum2_i686')
source_x86_64=("source1_x86_64.tar.gz" "source2_x86_64.tar.gz")
md5sums_x86_64=('md5sum1_x86_64' 'md5sum2_x86_64')

package() {
local -n source="source_$CARCH"
tarball="${source[1]}"
echo "$tarball"
tarball="${source[0]}"
echo "$tarball"
}

CARCH=i686
package

CARCH=x86_64
package

No evals, but probably requires a quite recent bash version (no problem
for arch I suppose). The output should look like:

source2_i686.tar.gz
source1_i686.tar.gz
source2_x86_64.tar.gz
source1_x86_64.tar.gz

This means you can get any element of the source_{i686,x86_64} array at
will via the source variable, this might be useful if there is more than
one source in the array.

-- 
Mauro Santos

Re: [aur-general] [AUR4] Single binary package for different architectures

[Buce]

On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 12:07 PM, Patrick Burroughs 
wrote:

> On Thu, 25 Jun 2015 17:01:02 +0200 Johannes Löthberg
>  wrote:
>
> > On 25/06, Patrick Burroughs wrote:
> > >On Thu, 25 Jun 2015 13:17:49 +0100 Mauro Santos
> > > wrote:
> > >> Wouldn't just
> > >>
> > >> local tarball="${source_$CARCH[0]}"
> > >>
> > >> or something very similar do the job?
> > >
> > >I believe you need:
> > >
> > >local tarball=$(eval "echo \${source_${CARCH}[0]}")
> > >
> >
> > Why do you believe that?
>
> A quick google and some personal testing showed me that the former
> doesn't work and the latter does, because bash doesn't interpolate
> variables in the middle of another variable like that; you need to use
> eval to make a second pass for it to work. Rather hacky, though, and I
> see no point in using it over the conditional construct proposed
> earlier — I just hate to see a suggestion that doesn't work out there.
>


You'd be better off avoiding the eval and using indirection:

local source_array="source_$CARCH"
local tarball="${!source_array[0]}"

Re: [aur-general] [AUR4] Single binary package for different architectures

[Celti]

On Thu, 25 Jun 2015 17:01:02 +0200 Johannes Löthberg
 wrote:

> On 25/06, Patrick Burroughs wrote:
> >On Thu, 25 Jun 2015 13:17:49 +0100 Mauro Santos
> > wrote:
> >> Wouldn't just
> >>
> >> local tarball="${source_$CARCH[0]}"
> >>
> >> or something very similar do the job?
> >
> >I believe you need:
> >
> >local tarball=$(eval "echo \${source_${CARCH}[0]}")
> >
> 
> Why do you believe that?

A quick google and some personal testing showed me that the former
doesn't work and the latter does, because bash doesn't interpolate
variables in the middle of another variable like that; you need to use
eval to make a second pass for it to work. Rather hacky, though, and I
see no point in using it over the conditional construct proposed
earlier — I just hate to see a suggestion that doesn't work out there.

-- 
Patrick Burroughs (Celti) 


pgpxO4ZztuZp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [aur-general] [AUR4] Single binary package for different architectures

[Maxime Gauduin]

On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 11:46 PM, Bruno Pagani 
wrote:

> Le 14/06/2015 16:31, Johannes Löthberg a écrit :
> > On 14/06, Johannes Löthberg wrote:
> >> On 14/06, Reventlov wrote:
>  In which way is it cleaner and more structured? It's a bash hack
>  instead of actually using properly structured and supported features.
> 
> >>>
> >>> Please take this not-a-bug https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/43714 in
> >>> consideration, too.
> >>>
> >>> It's why i'm not using this structure, personnally: if I did, i'd have
> >>> to use unique names for each architecture dependant source, and change
> >>> my package function and/or my build function to take thoses unique
> >>> names into account.
> >>>
> >>> A bash hack inside a bash script is not this bad.
> >>>
> >>
> >> I don't see how that is relevant anymore since the AUR doesn't use
> >> sourceballs anymore.
> >>
> >
> > And it will also make it not show up in the AUR properly since the
> > sources won't be parsed properly.
> >
>
> I’m not sure to understand you. How would you package this one for
> instance:
>
> https://aur4.archlinux.org/packages/chromium-pepper-flash-standalone/
>
> ?
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
source_i686=("libpepflashplayer-i686-${pkgver}.so::http://docs.volcanis.me/.pepper-flash/i686/libpepflashplayer.so";
 
"manifest-i686-${pkgver}.json::http://docs.volcanis.me/.pepper-flash/i686/manifest.json";)
sha1sums_i686=('hash1'
   'hash2')
source_x86_64=("libpepflashplayer-i686-${pkgver}.so::http://docs.volcanis.me/.pepper-flash/x86_64/libpepflashplayer.so";
 
"manifest-x86_64-${pkgver}.json::http://docs.volcanis.me/.pepper-flash/x86_64/manifest.json";)
sha1sums_x86_64=('hash3'
 'hash4')

package() {
  ...
  install -m 644 libpepflashplayer-$CARCH-${pkgver}.so
"${pkgdir}"/usr/lib/PepperFlash/libpepflashplayer.so
  install -m 644 manifest-$CARCH-${pkgver}.json
"${pkgdir}"/usr/lib/PepperFlash/manifest.json
  ...
}

Re: [aur-general] [AUR4] Single binary package for different architectures

[Maxime Gauduin]

On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 5:27 PM, Doug Newgard 
wrote:

> On Thu, 25 Jun 2015 12:15:01 -0300
> Hugo Osvaldo Barrera  wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Why not just name them the same locally?
> >
> > source_i686=("$pkgname-$pkgver::
> http://example.com/release-${pkgver}-i386.tar.gz";)
> > md5sums_i686=('ffeeddccbbaa99887766554433221100')
> > source_x86_64=("$pkgname-$pkgver::
> http://example.com/release-${pkgver}-x86_64.tar.gz";)
> > md5sums_x86_64=('00112233445566778899aabbccddeeff')
> >
> > package() {
> >   tar xf $pkgname-$pkgver
> >   ...
> > }
> >
>
> That creates problems verifying the checksums.
>

Exactly, read a couple emails back. Also why would you want to decompress
the source tarball in the package function? The source for your particular
arch, and only that one, is already decompressed by bsdtar, no need for
that extra step. See [1] for instance.

[1]
https://aur4.archlinux.org/cgit/aur.git/tree/PKGBUILD?h=plex-media-server

Cheers,
--
Maxime

Re: [aur-general] [AUR4] Single binary package for different architectures

[Doug Newgard]

On Thu, 25 Jun 2015 12:15:01 -0300
Hugo Osvaldo Barrera  wrote:

> 
> 
> Why not just name them the same locally?
> 
> source_i686=("$pkgname-$pkgver::http://example.com/release-${pkgver}-i386.tar.gz";)
> md5sums_i686=('ffeeddccbbaa99887766554433221100')
> source_x86_64=("$pkgname-$pkgver::http://example.com/release-${pkgver}-x86_64.tar.gz";)
> md5sums_x86_64=('00112233445566778899aabbccddeeff')
> 
> package() {
>   tar xf $pkgname-$pkgver
>   ...
> }
> 

That creates problems verifying the checksums.

Re: [aur-general] [AUR4] Single binary package for different architectures

[Hugo Osvaldo Barrera]

On Thu, Jun 25, 2015, at 08:26, Martti Kühne wrote:
> Do this:
> 
> source_i686=("http://example.com/release-${pkgver}-i386.tar.gz";)
> md5sums_i686=('ffeeddccbbaa99887766554433221100')
> source_x86_64=("http://example.com/release-${pkgver}-x86_64.tar.gz";)
> md5sums_x86_64=('00112233445566778899aabbccddeeff')
> 
> package() {
>   local tarball="${source_i686[0]}"
>   [ "$CARCH" == x86_64 ] && tarball="${source_x86_64[0]}"
>   tar xzf "$tarball" "$pkgdir"
> }
> 
> This way you're making use of the feature that was introduced to
> streamline architecture dependency for metadata extraction that is
> needed for use with the AUR. If you read FS#43714 closely, it says
> basically what I just said, that the bash functions sometimes have to
> clean up after the fact that we want to be one set of metadata and the
> same in all places, on all architectures. Anything else would simply
> defeat the purpose of compatibility.
> 
> cheers!
> mar77i

Why not just name them the same locally?

source_i686=("$pkgname-$pkgver::http://example.com/release-${pkgver}-i386.tar.gz";)
md5sums_i686=('ffeeddccbbaa99887766554433221100')
source_x86_64=("$pkgname-$pkgver::http://example.com/release-${pkgver}-x86_64.tar.gz";)
md5sums_x86_64=('00112233445566778899aabbccddeeff')

package() {
  tar xf $pkgname-$pkgver
  ...
}

-- 
Hugo Osvaldo Barrera

Re: [aur-general] [AUR4] Single binary package for different architectures

[Johannes Löthberg]

On 25/06, Patrick Burroughs wrote:

On Thu, 25 Jun 2015 13:17:49 +0100 Mauro Santos
 wrote:

Wouldn't just

local tarball="${source_$CARCH[0]}"

or something very similar do the job?


I believe you need:

local tarball=$(eval "echo \${source_${CARCH}[0]}")



Why do you believe that?

--
Sincerely,
 Johannes Löthberg
 PGP Key ID: 0x50FB9B273A9D0BB5
 https://theos.kyriasis.com/~kyrias/


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [aur-general] [AUR4] Single binary package for different architectures

[Johannes Löthberg]

On 25/06, Ralf Mardorf wrote:

However, AFAIK Ubuntu does not provide i386, even if the packages should
be named like that, IIRC they only provide i486, so the time will come
when even i686 is history.


Linux does not have support for i386 anymore.

--
Sincerely,
 Johannes Löthberg
 PGP Key ID: 0x50FB9B273A9D0BB5
 https://theos.kyriasis.com/~kyrias/


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [aur-general] [AUR4] Single binary package for different architectures

[Celti]

On Thu, 25 Jun 2015 13:17:49 +0100 Mauro Santos
 wrote:

> On 25-06-2015 12:26, Martti Kühne wrote:
> > Do this:
> > 
> > source_i686=("http://example.com/release-${pkgver}-i386.tar.gz";)
> > md5sums_i686=('ffeeddccbbaa99887766554433221100')
> > source_x86_64=("http://example.com/release-${pkgver}-x86_64.tar.gz";)
> > md5sums_x86_64=('00112233445566778899aabbccddeeff')
> > 
> > package() {
> >   local tarball="${source_i686[0]}"
> >   [ "$CARCH" == x86_64 ] && tarball="${source_x86_64[0]}"
> >   tar xzf "$tarball" "$pkgdir"
> > }
> 
> Wouldn't just
> 
> local tarball="${source_$CARCH[0]}"
> 
> or something very similar do the job?

I believe you need:

local tarball=$(eval "echo \${source_${CARCH}[0]}")

...which is complicated enough (and invokes a nice scary eval) that you
may as well stick with the conditional.

-- 
Patrick Burroughs (Celti) 


pgpza2zMQhknh.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [aur-general] [AUR4] Single binary package for different architectures

[Ralf Mardorf]

PS: I guess I still own an unused PC with a Cyrix CPU. Taking a look at
the Wiki, it might be that even this Cyrix CPU could belong to the 486
CPUs. My Atari ST has got parallel to the 68000 CPU a 80286 CPU, but I
only run TOS and similar and DR DOS on that machine, not Linux ;).

Re: [aur-general] [AUR4] Single binary package for different architectures

[Bruno Pagani]

Le 25/06/2015 14:26, Ralf Mardorf a écrit :
> On Thu, 25 Jun 2015 14:18:49 +0200, Bruno Pagani wrote:
>> The best option would be to get ride of i686. :p
> Likely an issue for Arch Linux freaks in Third World nations. Btw. I'm
> from Germany and still own a
> "fall-back"-"you-never-know"-32-bit-architecture-mobo. Even my 64-bit
> architecture computer hardware is outdated.
>
> However, AFAIK Ubuntu does not provide i386, even if the packages should
> be named like that, IIRC they only provide i486, so the time will come
> when even i686 is history.

Obviously, and you don’t even have to go so far away: they are still a
lot of (often proprietary) packages only 32bit. I was joking. ;)



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [aur-general] [AUR4] Single binary package for different architectures

[Ralf Mardorf]

On Thu, 25 Jun 2015 14:18:49 +0200, Bruno Pagani wrote:
>The best option would be to get ride of i686. :p

Likely an issue for Arch Linux freaks in Third World nations. Btw. I'm
from Germany and still own a
"fall-back"-"you-never-know"-32-bit-architecture-mobo. Even my 64-bit
architecture computer hardware is outdated.

However, AFAIK Ubuntu does not provide i386, even if the packages should
be named like that, IIRC they only provide i486, so the time will come
when even i686 is history.

Re: [aur-general] [AUR4] Single binary package for different architectures

[Bruno Pagani]

Le 25/06/2015 13:26, Martti Kühne a écrit :
> Do this:
>
> source_i686=("http://example.com/release-${pkgver}-i386.tar.gz";)
> md5sums_i686=('ffeeddccbbaa99887766554433221100')
> source_x86_64=("http://example.com/release-${pkgver}-x86_64.tar.gz";)
> md5sums_x86_64=('00112233445566778899aabbccddeeff')
>
> package() {
>   local tarball="${source_i686[0]}"
>   [ "$CARCH" == x86_64 ] && tarball="${source_x86_64[0]}"
>   tar xzf "$tarball" "$pkgdir"
> }
>
> This way you're making use of the feature that was introduced to
> streamline architecture dependency for metadata extraction that is
> needed for use with the AUR. If you read FS#43714 closely, it says
> basically what I just said, that the bash functions sometimes have to
> clean up after the fact that we want to be one set of metadata and the
> same in all places, on all architectures. Anything else would simply
> defeat the purpose of compatibility.
>
> cheers!
> mar77i

Yes, I read that, but this means that you still need a bash hack
somewhere in the end (which was my initial point in answer to Johannes)…
And the old one looks cleaner IMHO, but I agree that when speaking of
metadata, this last one is to be used.

The best option would be to get ride of i686. :p





signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [aur-general] [AUR4] Single binary package for different architectures

[Mauro Santos]

On 25-06-2015 12:26, Martti Kühne wrote:
> Do this:
> 
> source_i686=("http://example.com/release-${pkgver}-i386.tar.gz";)
> md5sums_i686=('ffeeddccbbaa99887766554433221100')
> source_x86_64=("http://example.com/release-${pkgver}-x86_64.tar.gz";)
> md5sums_x86_64=('00112233445566778899aabbccddeeff')
> 
> package() {
>   local tarball="${source_i686[0]}"
>   [ "$CARCH" == x86_64 ] && tarball="${source_x86_64[0]}"
>   tar xzf "$tarball" "$pkgdir"
> }

Wouldn't just

local tarball="${source_$CARCH[0]}"

or something very similar do the job?

-- 
Mauro Santos

Re: [aur-general] [AUR4] Single binary package for different architectures

[Martti Kühne]

Do this:

source_i686=("http://example.com/release-${pkgver}-i386.tar.gz";)
md5sums_i686=('ffeeddccbbaa99887766554433221100')
source_x86_64=("http://example.com/release-${pkgver}-x86_64.tar.gz";)
md5sums_x86_64=('00112233445566778899aabbccddeeff')

package() {
  local tarball="${source_i686[0]}"
  [ "$CARCH" == x86_64 ] && tarball="${source_x86_64[0]}"
  tar xzf "$tarball" "$pkgdir"
}

This way you're making use of the feature that was introduced to
streamline architecture dependency for metadata extraction that is
needed for use with the AUR. If you read FS#43714 closely, it says
basically what I just said, that the bash functions sometimes have to
clean up after the fact that we want to be one set of metadata and the
same in all places, on all architectures. Anything else would simply
defeat the purpose of compatibility.

cheers!
mar77i

Re: [aur-general] [AUR4] Single binary package for different architectures

[Bruno Pagani]

Le 23/06/2015 01:02, Eli Schwartz a écrit :
> On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 4:46 PM, Bruno Pagani 
> wrote:
>
>> I’m not sure to understand you. How would you package this one for
>> instance:
>>
>> https://aur4.archlinux.org/packages/chromium-pepper-flash-standalone/
>>
>> ?
>>
>> Bruno
>>
> See this diff: http://pastebin.com/EggVuYpH
>
> -- Eli Schwartz

But then: https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/43714





signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [aur-general] [AUR4] Single binary package for different architectures

[Eli Schwartz]

On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 4:46 PM, Bruno Pagani 
wrote:

> I’m not sure to understand you. How would you package this one for
> instance:
>
> https://aur4.archlinux.org/packages/chromium-pepper-flash-standalone/
>
> ?
>
> Bruno
>

See this diff: http://pastebin.com/EggVuYpH

-- Eli Schwartz

Re: [aur-general] [AUR4] Single binary package for different architectures

[Bruno Pagani]

Le 14/06/2015 16:31, Johannes Löthberg a écrit :
> On 14/06, Johannes Löthberg wrote:
>> On 14/06, Reventlov wrote:
 In which way is it cleaner and more structured? It's a bash hack
 instead of actually using properly structured and supported features.

>>>
>>> Please take this not-a-bug https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/43714 in
>>> consideration, too.
>>>
>>> It's why i'm not using this structure, personnally: if I did, i'd have
>>> to use unique names for each architecture dependant source, and change
>>> my package function and/or my build function to take thoses unique
>>> names into account.
>>>
>>> A bash hack inside a bash script is not this bad.
>>>
>>
>> I don't see how that is relevant anymore since the AUR doesn't use
>> sourceballs anymore.
>>
>
> And it will also make it not show up in the AUR properly since the
> sources won't be parsed properly.
>

I’m not sure to understand you. How would you package this one for instance:

https://aur4.archlinux.org/packages/chromium-pepper-flash-standalone/

?

Bruno





signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [aur-general] [AUR4] Single binary package for different architectures

[Johannes Löthberg]

On 14/06, Johannes Löthberg wrote:

On 14/06, Reventlov wrote:

In which way is it cleaner and more structured? It's a bash hack
instead of actually using properly structured and supported features.



Please take this not-a-bug https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/43714 in
consideration, too.

It's why i'm not using this structure, personnally: if I did, i'd have
to use unique names for each architecture dependant source, and change
my package function and/or my build function to take thoses unique
names into account.

A bash hack inside a bash script is not this bad.



I don't see how that is relevant anymore since the AUR doesn't use 
sourceballs anymore.




And it will also make it not show up in the AUR properly since the 
sources won't be parsed properly.


--
Sincerely,
 Johannes Löthberg
 PGP Key ID: 0x50FB9B273A9D0BB5
 https://theos.kyriasis.com/~kyrias/


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [aur-general] [AUR4] Single binary package for different architectures

[Johannes Löthberg]

On 14/06, Reventlov wrote:

In which way is it cleaner and more structured? It's a bash hack
instead of actually using properly structured and supported features.



Please take this not-a-bug https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/43714 in
consideration, too.

It's why i'm not using this structure, personnally: if I did, i'd have
to use unique names for each architecture dependant source, and change
my package function and/or my build function to take thoses unique
names into account.

A bash hack inside a bash script is not this bad.



I don't see how that is relevant anymore since the AUR doesn't use 
sourceballs anymore.


--
Sincerely,
 Johannes Löthberg
 PGP Key ID: 0x50FB9B273A9D0BB5
 https://theos.kyriasis.com/~kyrias/


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [aur-general] [AUR4] Single binary package for different architectures

[Reventlov]

Hello.

Le Sun, 14 Jun 2015 15:51:02 +0200,
Johannes Löthberg  a écrit :

>
> In which way is it cleaner and more structured? It's a bash hack
> instead of actually using properly structured and supported features.
> 

Please take this not-a-bug https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/43714 in
consideration, too.

It's why i'm not using this structure, personnally: if I did, i'd have
to use unique names for each architecture dependant source, and change
my package function and/or my build function to take thoses unique
names into account.

A bash hack inside a bash script is not this bad.

-- 
Rémy Grünblatt
Site Monod
Tél. : 06.51.74.06.13


pgpuxE_ng209h.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [aur-general] [AUR4] Single binary package for different architectures

[Johannes Löthberg]

On 14/06, Νῖκος Θεοδώρου wrote:

On Sat, 13 Jun 2015 22:57:45 +0200
Johannes Löthberg  wrote:


On 13/06, Νῖκος Θεοδώρου wrote:
>I do it like that and mksrcinfo works fine:
>
>if [ "$CARCH" = "i686" ]; then
>source=(…)
>md5sums=(…)
>elif [ "$CARCH" = "x86_64" ]; then
>source=(…)
>md5sums=(…)
>fi
>

Even if it works it should not be done anymore. makepkg has had
support for architecture-specific sources since 4.2



Granted, but in my opinion this is cleaner, more structured, I prefer
it.



In which way is it cleaner and more structured? It's a bash hack instead 
of actually using properly structured and supported features.


--
Sincerely,
 Johannes Löthberg
 PGP Key ID: 0x50FB9B273A9D0BB5
 https://theos.kyriasis.com/~kyrias/


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [aur-general] [AUR4] Single binary package for different architectures

[Νῖκος Θεοδώρου]

On Sat, 13 Jun 2015 22:57:45 +0200
Johannes Löthberg  wrote:

> On 13/06, Νῖκος Θεοδώρου wrote:
> >I do it like that and mksrcinfo works fine:
> >
> >if [ "$CARCH" = "i686" ]; then
> >source=(…)
> >md5sums=(…)
> >elif [ "$CARCH" = "x86_64" ]; then
> >source=(…)
> >md5sums=(…)
> >fi
> >
> 
> Even if it works it should not be done anymore. makepkg has had
> support for architecture-specific sources since 4.2
> 

Granted, but in my opinion this is cleaner, more structured, I prefer
it.

-- 
Νῖκος Θεοδώρου
«Ἀγεωμέτρητος μηδεὶς εἰσίτω!»

Re: [aur-general] [AUR4] Single binary package for different architectures

[Johannes Löthberg]

On 13/06, Νῖκος Θεοδώρου wrote:

I do it like that and mksrcinfo works fine:

if [ "$CARCH" = "i686" ]; then
source=(…)
md5sums=(…)
elif [ "$CARCH" = "x86_64" ]; then
source=(…)
md5sums=(…)
fi



Even if it works it should not be done anymore. makepkg has had support 
for architecture-specific sources since 4.2


--
Sincerely,
 Johannes Löthberg
 PGP Key ID: 0x50FB9B273A9D0BB5
 https://theos.kyriasis.com/~kyrias/


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [aur-general] [AUR4] Single binary package for different architectures

[Νῖκος Θεοδώρου]

On Sat, 13 Jun 2015 20:31:08 +0200
Rudy Matela  wrote:

> if [ ${CARCH} = 'x86_64' ]; then
> source=("http://example.com/release-${pkgver}-x86_64.tar.gz";)
> md5sums=('00112233445566778899aabbccddeeff')
> else
> source=("http://example.com/release-${pkgver}-i386.tar.gz";)
> md5sums=('ffeeddccbbaa99887766554433221100')
> fi
> 
> Running mksrcinfo fails with the error:
> 
> /path/PKGBUILD: line XX: [: =: unary operator expected
> 
> "line XX" points to the line containing the if.
> 
> 
> Are there some guildelines for packaging something like this?
> How could I make mksrcinfo work?

I do it like that and mksrcinfo works fine:

if [ "$CARCH" = "i686" ]; then
source=(…)
md5sums=(…)
elif [ "$CARCH" = "x86_64" ]; then
source=(…)
md5sums=(…)
fi

-- 
Νῖκος Θεοδώρου
«Ἀγεωμέτρητος μηδεὶς εἰσίτω!»

Re: [aur-general] [AUR4] Single binary package for different architectures

[Ido Rosen]

On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 2:31 PM, Rudy Matela  wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am importing a PKGBUILD for something that has only a binary release.
> More specifically, a binary release for i686 and another for x86_64.
>
> In the old AUR, I was packaging it using an if clause to choose which
> release to download depending on the architecture -- this way, I can
> have a single package for both architectures.  More or less like this:
>
> if [ ${CARCH} = 'x86_64' ]; then
> source=("http://example.com/release-${pkgver}-x86_64.tar.gz";)
> md5sums=('00112233445566778899aabbccddeeff')
> else
> source=("http://example.com/release-${pkgver}-i386.tar.gz";)
> md5sums=('ffeeddccbbaa99887766554433221100')
> fi
>
> Running mksrcinfo fails with the error:
>
> /path/PKGBUILD: line XX: [: =: unary operator expected
>
> "line XX" points to the line containing the if.
>
>
> Are there some guildelines for packaging something like this?
> How could I make mksrcinfo work?
> Is there any way to generate the .SRCINFO file manually to conform to
> the dual-binary release described above?
>
> (or... should I not be doing this at all?)

pacman 4.2 introduces source_${CARCH} and *sum_${CARCH} variables.

See also:
https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/PKGBUILD#source

>
> --
> Rudy

[aur-general] [AUR4] Single binary package for different architectures

[Rudy Matela]

Hello,

I am importing a PKGBUILD for something that has only a binary release.
More specifically, a binary release for i686 and another for x86_64.

In the old AUR, I was packaging it using an if clause to choose which
release to download depending on the architecture -- this way, I can
have a single package for both architectures.  More or less like this:

if [ ${CARCH} = 'x86_64' ]; then
source=("http://example.com/release-${pkgver}-x86_64.tar.gz";)
md5sums=('00112233445566778899aabbccddeeff')
else
source=("http://example.com/release-${pkgver}-i386.tar.gz";)
md5sums=('ffeeddccbbaa99887766554433221100')
fi

Running mksrcinfo fails with the error:

/path/PKGBUILD: line XX: [: =: unary operator expected

"line XX" points to the line containing the if.


Are there some guildelines for packaging something like this?
How could I make mksrcinfo work?
Is there any way to generate the .SRCINFO file manually to conform to
the dual-binary release described above?

(or... should I not be doing this at all?)

--
Rudy