Re: [aur-general] virtualbox-extension-pack vs. virtualbox-ext-oracle
Laurent Carlier lordhea...@gmail.com on Mon, 2014/08/04 23:11:
Le lundi 4 août 2014, 18:15:32 Christian Hesse a écrit :
Hello everybody,
following a lengthy discussion sublu just deleted my package
virtualbox-extension-pack from AUR. This is what his package
(virtualbox-ext-oracle) does:
* Install an archive file.
* Use install script to copy a number of files to /usr without pacman
knowing about it.
I think this is the wrong way, so I created my own package
(virtualbox-extension-pack) that tries to get it right:
* Just install the files required, ready to use for virtualbox.
* No crappy install script required!
My package had about 75 votes IIRC, probably there would have been more if
more people knew about the details. The discussing had a number of
comments that agreed about my opinion regarding installing/coping files
to /usr with pacman or the install script.
Although I think it is wrong seblu is free to provide his package via AUR.
But is there any good reason mine is not allowed to reside there?
I've checked both packages, then i've also checked virtualbox
documentation. Documentation is available at
http://www.virtualbox.org/manual/
* Ch8.36. VBoxManage extpack *
The extpack command allows you to add or remove VirtualBox extension
packs, as described in Section 1.5, “Installing VirtualBox and extension
packs”.
In regards of VirtualBox docs, Seblu is installing extension pack the
proper way.
Mozilla provides a tarball named firefox-31.0.tar.bz2. We could make pacman
install that, then use the install script to extract the package and run
install.sh. No?
What upstream recommends is a way that should work on all distribution,
ignoring the distribution's tools. I do not think this is the way to follow if
we can get it better. Files in /usr should be tracked by pacman, with some
really rare exceptions only. In my opinion virtualbox or its dependencies are
not.
Your package isn't following upstream way to install extension package and
you are not sure it will keep working, you are just lucky.
I can update my package whenever upstream changes how things work. So what?
Packages are modified all the time.
Your package is only a duplicated package of seblu's one, only differing on
the way to install extension pack files isn't a good reason enough. Seblu
was right to remove your package, there was an explanation before
suppressing, rules were followed.
Nothing more to say.
I do not agree.
This is pretty stupid. My package does not hurt anybody and a lot of people
do want to use it.
--
main(a){char*c=/*Schoene Gruesse */B?IJj;MEH
CX:;,b;for(a/*Chris get my mail address:*/=0;b=c[a++];)
putchar(b-1/(/* gcc -o sig sig.c ./sig*/b/42*2-3)*42);}
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Re: [aur-general] virtualbox-extension-pack vs. virtualbox-ext-oracle
On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 6:15 PM, Christian Hesse l...@eworm.de wrote: My package had about 75 votes IIRC, probably there would have been more if more people knew about the details. The discussing had a number of comments that agreed about my opinion regarding installing/coping files to /usr with pacman or the install script. Although I think it is wrong seblu is free to provide his package via AUR. But is there any good reason mine is not allowed to reside there? For what it's worth, I (a regular Arch Linux user) support this package, I think it's the best way to install this extension pack, and was a bit amazed that someone with a competitive package could delete this one. Kind regards, Marcel BTW, his nick is 'seblu', not 'sublu', as Christian Hesse typoed.
Re: [aur-general] virtualbox-extension-pack vs. virtualbox-ext-oracle
Hi, I didn't vote for any package I'm using from AUR. Perhaps it's a mistake. Here the package of choice is virtualbox-extension-pack. $ pacman -Q virtualbox-extension-pack virtualbox-extension-pack 4.3.12-1 $ ls /var/cache/aur/virtualbox-extension-pack* /var/cache/aur/virtualbox-extension-pack-4.3.10-2-x86_64.pkg.tar.xz /var/cache/aur/virtualbox-extension-pack-4.3.12-1-x86_64.pkg.tar.xz /var/cache/aur/virtualbox-extension-pack-4.3.14-1-x86_64.pkg.tar.xz /var/cache/aur/virtualbox-extension-pack-4.3.14-2-x86_64.pkg.tar.xz Currently downgraded regarding to https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/41424 . The package shouldn't be deleted. Regards, Ralf -- The natural scientists Fritz Haber, Otto Hahn, James Franck and Gustav Hertz established poison gas for military usage and later they were decorated with the Nobelpreis.
Re: [aur-general] virtualbox-extension-pack vs. virtualbox-ext-oracle
Le lundi 4 août 2014, 18:15:32 Christian Hesse a écrit : Hello everybody, following a lengthy discussion sublu just deleted my package virtualbox-extension-pack from AUR. This is what his package (virtualbox-ext-oracle) does: * Install an archive file. * Use install script to copy a number of files to /usr without pacman knowing about it. I think this is the wrong way, so I created my own package (virtualbox-extension-pack) that tries to get it right: * Just install the files required, ready to use for virtualbox. * No crappy install script required! My package had about 75 votes IIRC, probably there would have been more if more people knew about the details. The discussing had a number of comments that agreed about my opinion regarding installing/coping files to /usr with pacman or the install script. Although I think it is wrong seblu is free to provide his package via AUR. But is there any good reason mine is not allowed to reside there? I've checked both packages, then i've also checked virtualbox documentation. Documentation is available at http://www.virtualbox.org/manual/ * Ch8.36. VBoxManage extpack * The extpack command allows you to add or remove VirtualBox extension packs, as described in Section 1.5, “Installing VirtualBox and extension packs”. In regards of VirtualBox docs, Seblu is installing extension pack the proper way. Your package isn't following upstream way to install extension package and you are not sure it will keep working, you are just lucky. Your package is only a duplicated package of seblu's one, only differing on the way to install extension pack files isn't a good reason enough. Seblu was right to remove your package, there was an explanation before suppressing, rules were followed. Nothing more to say. -- Laurent Carlier http://www.archlinux.org signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [aur-general] virtualbox-extension-pack vs. virtualbox-ext-oracle
Even if the script is the recommended way, shouldn't the package be designed so that it will track all of its files? Having a post install script that places files through your filesystem feels like a dirty hack at the best of times. Regards, Justin Dray E: jus...@dray.be M: 0433348284 On 05/08/2014 7:13 am, Laurent Carlier lordhea...@gmail.com wrote: Le lundi 4 août 2014, 18:15:32 Christian Hesse a écrit : Hello everybody, following a lengthy discussion sublu just deleted my package virtualbox-extension-pack from AUR. This is what his package (virtualbox-ext-oracle) does: * Install an archive file. * Use install script to copy a number of files to /usr without pacman knowing about it. I think this is the wrong way, so I created my own package (virtualbox-extension-pack) that tries to get it right: * Just install the files required, ready to use for virtualbox. * No crappy install script required! My package had about 75 votes IIRC, probably there would have been more if more people knew about the details. The discussing had a number of comments that agreed about my opinion regarding installing/coping files to /usr with pacman or the install script. Although I think it is wrong seblu is free to provide his package via AUR. But is there any good reason mine is not allowed to reside there? I've checked both packages, then i've also checked virtualbox documentation. Documentation is available at http://www.virtualbox.org/manual/ * Ch8.36. VBoxManage extpack * The extpack command allows you to add or remove VirtualBox extension packs, as described in Section 1.5, “Installing VirtualBox and extension packs”. In regards of VirtualBox docs, Seblu is installing extension pack the proper way. Your package isn't following upstream way to install extension package and you are not sure it will keep working, you are just lucky. Your package is only a duplicated package of seblu's one, only differing on the way to install extension pack files isn't a good reason enough. Seblu was right to remove your package, there was an explanation before suppressing, rules were followed. Nothing more to say. -- Laurent Carlier http://www.archlinux.org
