Re: [aur-general] Request to check my PKGBUILD and suggest me some improvements

[Patrick Eigensatz via aur-general]

Eli Schwartz via aur-general  schrieb am Di.,
16. Aug. 2016, 19:24:

> On 08/16/2016 01:12 PM, Patrick Eigensatz wrote:
> > No, the errors I experienced were all PKGBUILD syntax related mistakes;
> > also I didn't know I could use full bash syntax in the PKGSRC file this
> > is why I "extended"   ./   to   shto eliminate possible error causes
> > I would not have been aware of.
>
> Well, if it helps your understanding... :)
>
> makepkg is written in pure bash, and will source the PKGBUILD then use
> the bash variables and functions defined in the PKGBUILD in order to
> build the package. So yes, anything bash will work.
>
> (You are also guaranteed that anything defined in libmakepkg is
> available for you to use.)
>
> Granted, makepkg will run additional checks to make sure that the
> makepkg-specific variables/functions conform to what makepkg expects.
> eg. checking that things which need to be arrays aren't (lazily) strings
> instead.
>
> --
> Eli Schwartz
>



Thank you very much for your explanation!


I'll try to improve things as soon as I've got some time.


(Fortunately I received a pull request for some code in my program which I
was quite happy about - although I'm currently a bit "out of time" so I'm
very grateful for your patience and feedback!)


--
Patrick

>

Re: [aur-general] Request to check my PKGBUILD and suggest me some improvements

[Eli Schwartz via aur-general]

On 08/16/2016 01:12 PM, Patrick Eigensatz wrote:
> No, the errors I experienced were all PKGBUILD syntax related mistakes;
> also I didn't know I could use full bash syntax in the PKGSRC file this
> is why I "extended"   ./   to   shto eliminate possible error causes
> I would not have been aware of.

Well, if it helps your understanding... :)

makepkg is written in pure bash, and will source the PKGBUILD then use
the bash variables and functions defined in the PKGBUILD in order to
build the package. So yes, anything bash will work.

(You are also guaranteed that anything defined in libmakepkg is
available for you to use.)

Granted, makepkg will run additional checks to make sure that the
makepkg-specific variables/functions conform to what makepkg expects.
eg. checking that things which need to be arrays aren't (lazily) strings
instead.

-- 
Eli Schwartz

Re: [aur-general] Request to check my PKGBUILD and suggest me some improvements

[Patrick Eigensatz via aur-general]

Eli Schwartz via aur-general  schrieb am Di.,
16. Aug. 2016, 15:10:

> On 08/16/2016 06:54 AM, Patrick Eigensatz via aur-general wrote:
> > I usually do run my shellscripts via ./ too, but when I experimented with
> > makepkg I experienced some errors and I wasn't sure if makepkg would know
> > how to interpret ./ so I wrote sh. I'll change this back soon.
>
> What kind of errors? Since the two formats should be exactly the same
> unless the shellscript is not marked as executable...
> This may just be a style nit, but mysterious errors aren't a style nit
> -- they are something you should understand, rather than simply avoid.
>
>
> Oh, another "good practice" suggestion:
>
> For the source array, use
> source=("$pkgname-$pkgver.tar.gz::$url/archive/v$pkgver.tar.gz")
>
> This will rename the source tarball so it won't clash with other
> downloads, since GitHub uses the same style of pkgver-based url
> locations (with content-disposition, which makepkg doesn't respect, to
> rename it properly).
>
> Why does this matter? Only because if someone uses a common $SRCDEST
> (see `man makepkg.conf`) they might have a different file with the same
> name which makepkg will assume is the file it wants (then fail the
> integrity check).
>
> --
> Eli Schwartz
>


No, the errors I experienced were all PKGBUILD syntax related mistakes;
also I didn't know I could use full bash syntax in the PKGSRC file this is
why I "extended"   ./   to   shto eliminate possible error causes I
would not have been aware of.


Yes, indeed the github downloads all look the same. I'll implement your
suggestion soon, thank you!


--
Patrick

>

Re: [aur-general] Request to check my PKGBUILD and suggest me some improvements

[Patrick Eigensatz via aur-general]

Am 15.08.2016 02:57 schrieb "Eli Schwartz via aur-general" <
aur-general@archlinux.org>:
>
> On 08/13/2016 03:47 PM, Patrick Eigensatz via aur-general wrote:
> > Then I read I could ask here for suggestions and improvements.
> > Is there something I didn't do which is e.g. a good habit? Or did I
> > something that I shouldn't have done?
>
> Including the feedback you have already received, it looks pretty good
now.
>
> But I would note a couple additional things:
>
> gcc-libs is part of the base group, and gcc is part of base-devel.
> Neither should ever be listed as depends (or makedepends, respectively),
> since it is assumed all users have gcc-libs installed and gcc is a
> prerequisite to running makepkg.
>
> I don't usually see people running shellscripts using `sh $shellscript`
> -- it is usually `./$shellscript`.
> It really makes no difference (practical or otherwise) except for
> looking odd...
>
> As Florian Bruhnin said, md5sums is not needed, you only need one
> checksum validation. The tools for every validation method (or anything
> else built into makepkg itself) will always be required for makepkg via
> the base/base-devel or pacman dependencies. In addition to the most
> common build tools like gcc/make/patch/autotools/libtool.
> sha256sums is always superior to legacy md5sums so stick with that.
>
> If you want to further variableize your PKGBUILD, you can use $pkgname
> in the url as well, I usually do. (Sometimes this will allow a lot more
> copy-pasting of existing PKGBUILDs, the rest of the time it just
> highlights the relationship between the pkgname and the upstream url.)
> This really is just a style preference though.
>
> --
> Eli Schwartz

@Eli

Thank you for explaining this to me! namcap showed gcc-libs-multilib as a
dependency. I chose to add gcc-libs but I did not know it would already be
installed as a prerequisite. Maybe this is something in namcap we could
improve then?

I'll remove the md5sums soon, so I'll stick to sha256. Also I'll try to
variableize the url etc. as well - seems legit to me to take this PKGBUILD
as a template for further projects.

I usually do run my shellscripts via ./ too, but when I experimented with
makepkg I experienced some errors and I wasn't sure if makepkg would know
how to interpret ./ so I wrote sh. I'll change this back soon.

@Christoph

Indeed, although my autogen script is so simple it probably wouldn't even
matter if you run it with bash or only sh. If extracted correctly out of
the source .tar.gz the executable bit should already have been set.

--
Patrick

Re: [aur-general] Request to check my PKGBUILD and suggest me some improvements

[Christoph Gysin via aur-general]

> I don't usually see people running shellscripts using `sh $shellscript`
> -- it is usually `./$shellscript`.
> It really makes no difference (practical or otherwise) except for
> looking odd...

I can make a difference. "sh shellscript" will run the script using
sh, whereas "./shellscript" will run the script using the shebang. It
happens to be /bin/sh at the moment, but that could change over time.

The only reason I can imagine to use "sh shellscript" is if the
shellscript does not have the executable bit set.

Chris
-- 
echo mailto: NOSPAM !#$.'<*>'|sed 's. ..'|tr "<*> !#:2" org@fr33z3

Re: [aur-general] Request to check my PKGBUILD and suggest me some improvements

[Eli Schwartz via aur-general]

On 08/13/2016 03:47 PM, Patrick Eigensatz via aur-general wrote:
> Then I read I could ask here for suggestions and improvements.
> Is there something I didn't do which is e.g. a good habit? Or did I
> something that I shouldn't have done?

Including the feedback you have already received, it looks pretty good now.

But I would note a couple additional things:

gcc-libs is part of the base group, and gcc is part of base-devel.
Neither should ever be listed as depends (or makedepends, respectively),
since it is assumed all users have gcc-libs installed and gcc is a
prerequisite to running makepkg.

I don't usually see people running shellscripts using `sh $shellscript`
-- it is usually `./$shellscript`.
It really makes no difference (practical or otherwise) except for
looking odd...

As Florian Bruhnin said, md5sums is not needed, you only need one
checksum validation. The tools for every validation method (or anything
else built into makepkg itself) will always be required for makepkg via
the base/base-devel or pacman dependencies. In addition to the most
common build tools like gcc/make/patch/autotools/libtool.
sha256sums is always superior to legacy md5sums so stick with that.

If you want to further variableize your PKGBUILD, you can use $pkgname
in the url as well, I usually do. (Sometimes this will allow a lot more
copy-pasting of existing PKGBUILDs, the rest of the time it just
highlights the relationship between the pkgname and the upstream url.)
This really is just a style preference though.

-- 
Eli Schwartz

Re: [aur-general] Request to check my PKGBUILD and suggest me some improvements

[Patrick Eigensatz via aur-general]

Alad Wenter  schrieb am Sa., 13. Aug. 2016 um
23:25 Uhr:

> Op 13.08.2016 om 22:39 schreef Patrick Eigensatz via aur-general:
> > @Alad:
> >
> > Thanks, I changed this as well!
> >
> >
> > @Florian:
> > I thought if there was a variable for both I'd set both :)
> > Should I remove the md5sum? Is there a guarantee every Archsystem
> > has the md5sum and/or the sha256 command available?
> >
> >
> > Another question just popped in my mind:
> > How does namcap find dependencies of my package? How I can I be sure
> > it discovered all and I didn't forget one?
> md5sum and sha256sum are owned by the same package. You can check this
> by specifying their path to "pacman -Qo".
>
> If you want to know how likely it is that users have certain package
> installed, you can check the statistics.
>
> https://www.archlinux.de/?page=PackageStatistics
>
> Regarding dependencies and namcap, this should be the relevant code:
>
> https://git.archlinux.org/namcap.git/tree/Namcap/rules/sodepends.py
> https://git.archlinux.org/namcap.git/tree/Namcap/rules/shebangdepends.py
>
> P.S. If you plan on posting more regularly to these lists, you should
> change your mail client settings to "bottom post". For Thunderbird, this
> is explained here:
>
> https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/reply-above-or-below-quoted-text
>
>


Indeed, pacman shows me that both binaries belong to the coreutils package,
which is installed everywhere...

Thank you for providing the code! It looks as if Python had some cool
functions to determine needed external libs from a ELF binary.

I did not know where to write my reply, thank you for letting me know this!
As I use a webclient I hope it's correct now... :/

Re: [aur-general] Request to check my PKGBUILD and suggest me some improvements

[Alad Wenter]

Op 13.08.2016 om 22:39 schreef Patrick Eigensatz via aur-general:
> @Alad:
>
> Thanks, I changed this as well!
>
>
> @Florian:
> I thought if there was a variable for both I'd set both :)
> Should I remove the md5sum? Is there a guarantee every Archsystem
> has the md5sum and/or the sha256 command available?
>
>
> Another question just popped in my mind:
> How does namcap find dependencies of my package? How I can I be sure
> it discovered all and I didn't forget one?
md5sum and sha256sum are owned by the same package. You can check this
by specifying their path to "pacman -Qo".

If you want to know how likely it is that users have certain package
installed, you can check the statistics.

https://www.archlinux.de/?page=PackageStatistics

Regarding dependencies and namcap, this should be the relevant code:

https://git.archlinux.org/namcap.git/tree/Namcap/rules/sodepends.py
https://git.archlinux.org/namcap.git/tree/Namcap/rules/shebangdepends.py

P.S. If you plan on posting more regularly to these lists, you should
change your mail client settings to "bottom post". For Thunderbird, this
is explained here:

https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/reply-above-or-below-quoted-text



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [aur-general] Request to check my PKGBUILD and suggest me some improvements

[Patrick Eigensatz via aur-general]

@Alad:

Thanks, I changed this as well!


@Florian:
I thought if there was a variable for both I'd set both :)
Should I remove the md5sum? Is there a guarantee every Archsystem
has the md5sum and/or the sha256 command available?


Another question just popped in my mind:
How does namcap find dependencies of my package? How I can I be sure
it discovered all and I didn't forget one?


Patrick


Florian Bruhin  schrieb am Sa., 13. Aug. 2016 um
22:23 Uhr:

> * Patrick Eigensatz via aur-general 
> [2016-08-13 20:18:05 +]:
> > Thank you very much for your ideas. I just pushed a new version of the
> > PKGBUILD
> > here:
> >
> > https://aur.archlinux.org/cgit/aur.git/tree/PKGBUILD?h=qjournalctl
> >
> >
> > Are there further improvements? The point with the substitutions of
> $pkgver
> > seems very handy to me!
>
> Why do you have both md5sums and sha256sums set? One of them should
> suffice ;)
>
> Florian
>
> --
> http://www.the-compiler.org | m...@the-compiler.org (Mail/XMPP)
>GPG: 916E B0C8 FD55 A072 | http://the-compiler.org/pubkey.asc
>  I love long mails! | http://email.is-not-s.ms/
>

Re: [aur-general] Request to check my PKGBUILD and suggest me some improvements

[Alad Wenter]

Op 13.08.2016 om 22:18 schreef Patrick Eigensatz via aur-general:
> Hello Alad, Hello Dan
>
> Thank you very much for your ideas. I just pushed a new version of the
> PKGBUILD
> here:
>
> https://aur.archlinux.org/cgit/aur.git/tree/PKGBUILD?h=qjournalctl
>
>
> Are there further improvements? The point with the substitutions of $pkgver
> seems very handy to me!
>
>
> Thank you!
>
>
>
>
> Dan B via aur-general  schrieb am Sa., 13. Aug.
> 2016 um 21:58 Uhr:
>
>> Remove the "make -j 9" line. I'll review the rest in a sec
>>
>> On Aug 13, 2016 2:47 PM, "Patrick Eigensatz via aur-general" <
>> aur-general@archlinux.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Hello folks!
>>>
>>> I am a beginner in Arch packaging but I just came to a stable point
>> writing
>>> my small systemd journal analyzer and beeing a Arch user for some years
>> now
>>> I thought it would
>>> be a good exercise for me to write a PKGBUILD for my program and try to
>>> upload it to the AUR.
>>>
>>> It is now online @ https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/qjournalctl/
>>>
>>>
>>> I followed the wiki guidelines
>>>  @
>>> https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_User_
>>> Repository#Submitting_packages
>>>
>>> I read myself into the
>>>  @ https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_packaging_standards
>>> and into
>>>  @ https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/PKGBUILD
>>>
>>> and I tried to follow all the suggestions there and I kept my PKGBUILD as
>>> tiny
>>> as possible.
>>>
>>> I also runned namcap to check my PKGBUILD respectively the generated
>>> package.
>>> As I had some dependencies (namely qt5-base and gcc-multilibs) I listed
>>> them in the PKGBUILD.
>>>
>>>
>>> I tried to have a look at other PKGBUILDs as well and to compare it to
>> mine
>>> but I could not find something which would really differ from my first
>>> trial.
>>>
>>> Then I read I could ask here for suggestions and improvements.
>>> Is there something I didn't do which is e.g. a good habit? Or did I
>>> something that I shouldn't have done?
>>>
>>>
>>> I hope some experienced AUR packagers / TUs can give me a few points I
>> can
>>> work on. Feel free to give me feedback on my program as well! ;)
>>>
>>>
>>> Thank you very much!
>>> Patrick
>>>
Looks good. Note that you can leave out the mkdir line, by appending the
-D option to install. i.e.

install -Dm755 "$pkgname-$pkgver/$pkgname" "$pkgdir/usr/bin/$pkgname"

or

install -Dm755 "$pkgname-$pkgver/$pkgname" -t "$pkgdir/usr/bin"

The -t variant also works with multiple files, should you ever need to
do that.

Alad




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [aur-general] Request to check my PKGBUILD and suggest me some improvements

[Florian Bruhin]

* Patrick Eigensatz via aur-general  [2016-08-13 
20:18:05 +]:
> Thank you very much for your ideas. I just pushed a new version of the
> PKGBUILD
> here:
> 
> https://aur.archlinux.org/cgit/aur.git/tree/PKGBUILD?h=qjournalctl
> 
> 
> Are there further improvements? The point with the substitutions of $pkgver
> seems very handy to me!

Why do you have both md5sums and sha256sums set? One of them should
suffice ;)

Florian

-- 
http://www.the-compiler.org | m...@the-compiler.org (Mail/XMPP)
   GPG: 916E B0C8 FD55 A072 | http://the-compiler.org/pubkey.asc
 I love long mails! | http://email.is-not-s.ms/


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [aur-general] Request to check my PKGBUILD and suggest me some improvements

[Patrick Eigensatz via aur-general]

Hello Alad, Hello Dan

Thank you very much for your ideas. I just pushed a new version of the
PKGBUILD
here:

https://aur.archlinux.org/cgit/aur.git/tree/PKGBUILD?h=qjournalctl


Are there further improvements? The point with the substitutions of $pkgver
seems very handy to me!


Thank you!




Dan B via aur-general  schrieb am Sa., 13. Aug.
2016 um 21:58 Uhr:

> Remove the "make -j 9" line. I'll review the rest in a sec
>
> On Aug 13, 2016 2:47 PM, "Patrick Eigensatz via aur-general" <
> aur-general@archlinux.org> wrote:
>
> > Hello folks!
> >
> > I am a beginner in Arch packaging but I just came to a stable point
> writing
> > my small systemd journal analyzer and beeing a Arch user for some years
> now
> > I thought it would
> > be a good exercise for me to write a PKGBUILD for my program and try to
> > upload it to the AUR.
> >
> > It is now online @ https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/qjournalctl/
> >
> >
> > I followed the wiki guidelines
> >  @
> > https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_User_
> > Repository#Submitting_packages
> >
> > I read myself into the
> >  @ https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_packaging_standards
> > and into
> >  @ https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/PKGBUILD
> >
> > and I tried to follow all the suggestions there and I kept my PKGBUILD as
> > tiny
> > as possible.
> >
> > I also runned namcap to check my PKGBUILD respectively the generated
> > package.
> > As I had some dependencies (namely qt5-base and gcc-multilibs) I listed
> > them in the PKGBUILD.
> >
> >
> > I tried to have a look at other PKGBUILDs as well and to compare it to
> mine
> > but I could not find something which would really differ from my first
> > trial.
> >
> > Then I read I could ask here for suggestions and improvements.
> > Is there something I didn't do which is e.g. a good habit? Or did I
> > something that I shouldn't have done?
> >
> >
> > I hope some experienced AUR packagers / TUs can give me a few points I
> can
> > work on. Feel free to give me feedback on my program as well! ;)
> >
> >
> > Thank you very much!
> > Patrick
> >
>

Re: [aur-general] Request to check my PKGBUILD and suggest me some improvements

[Dan B via aur-general]

Remove the "make -j 9" line. I'll review the rest in a sec

On Aug 13, 2016 2:47 PM, "Patrick Eigensatz via aur-general" <
aur-general@archlinux.org> wrote:

> Hello folks!
>
> I am a beginner in Arch packaging but I just came to a stable point writing
> my small systemd journal analyzer and beeing a Arch user for some years now
> I thought it would
> be a good exercise for me to write a PKGBUILD for my program and try to
> upload it to the AUR.
>
> It is now online @ https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/qjournalctl/
>
>
> I followed the wiki guidelines
>  @
> https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_User_
> Repository#Submitting_packages
>
> I read myself into the
>  @ https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_packaging_standards
> and into
>  @ https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/PKGBUILD
>
> and I tried to follow all the suggestions there and I kept my PKGBUILD as
> tiny
> as possible.
>
> I also runned namcap to check my PKGBUILD respectively the generated
> package.
> As I had some dependencies (namely qt5-base and gcc-multilibs) I listed
> them in the PKGBUILD.
>
>
> I tried to have a look at other PKGBUILDs as well and to compare it to mine
> but I could not find something which would really differ from my first
> trial.
>
> Then I read I could ask here for suggestions and improvements.
> Is there something I didn't do which is e.g. a good habit? Or did I
> something that I shouldn't have done?
>
>
> I hope some experienced AUR packagers / TUs can give me a few points I can
> work on. Feel free to give me feedback on my program as well! ;)
>
>
> Thank you very much!
> Patrick
>

Re: [aur-general] Request to check my PKGBUILD and suggest me some improvements

[Alad Wenter]

Op 13.08.2016 om 21:47 schreef Patrick Eigensatz via aur-general:
> Hello folks!
>
> I am a beginner in Arch packaging but I just came to a stable point writing
> my small systemd journal analyzer and beeing a Arch user for some years now
> I thought it would
> be a good exercise for me to write a PKGBUILD for my program and try to
> upload it to the AUR.
>
> It is now online @ https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/qjournalctl/
>
>
> I followed the wiki guidelines
>  @
> https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_User_Repository#Submitting_packages
>
> I read myself into the
>  @ https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_packaging_standards
> and into
>  @ https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/PKGBUILD
>
> and I tried to follow all the suggestions there and I kept my PKGBUILD as
> tiny
> as possible.
>
> I also runned namcap to check my PKGBUILD respectively the generated
> package.
> As I had some dependencies (namely qt5-base and gcc-multilibs) I listed
> them in the PKGBUILD.
>
>
> I tried to have a look at other PKGBUILDs as well and to compare it to mine
> but I could not find something which would really differ from my first
> trial.
>
> Then I read I could ask here for suggestions and improvements.
> Is there something I didn't do which is e.g. a good habit? Or did I
> something that I shouldn't have done?
>
>
> I hope some experienced AUR packagers / TUs can give me a few points I can
> work on. Feel free to give me feedback on my program as well! ;)
>
>
> Thank you very much!
> Patrick

- Remove the "This is an example" text at the top

- Quote $pkgdir so the build doesn't fail in directories with spaces

- The -jX option is already set in MAKEFLAGS, see makepkg.conf

- "install" is commonly used over "cp", as it has more options such as
setting permissions

- If you use double quotes in the source array, you can substitute
variables such as $url

People also tend to substitute $pkgname and $pkgver, so all they have to
do on an update is change those variables. I'd say this is a thing of
preference, though.

Alad




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature