Package Details: chatterino2-bin 2.5.3-10

Git Clone URL: https://aur.archlinux.org/chatterino2-bin.git (read-only, click to copy)
Package Base: chatterino2-bin
Description: A chat client for Twitch.tv.
Upstream URL: https://github.com/chatterino/chatterino2
Licenses: MIT
Conflicts: chatterino
Provides: chatterino
Submitter: matthewq337
Maintainer: matthewq337 (oech3, pajlada, chatterino2-ci)
Last Packager: oech3
Votes: 2
Popularity: 0.095180
First Submitted: 2024-07-15 00:20 (UTC)
Last Updated: 2025-04-29 15:42 (UTC)

Latest Comments

1 2 3 4 Next › Last »

pajlada commented on 2025-04-28 09:22 (UTC)

@oech3: Awesome to hear about the Full RELRO update

oech3 commented on 2025-04-28 09:16 (UTC)

Full RELRO was hidden since my STRIP_BINARIES of makepkg.conf was corrupted. Nothing to do.

pajlada commented on 2025-04-27 20:13 (UTC) (edited on 2025-04-27 20:14 (UTC) by pajlada)

Different build process may produce unbuildable AUR/chatterino2 and buildable AUR/chatterino2-bin at the same time.

Sorry, could you clarify what you mean by this? Both chatterino2 and chatterino2-bin use the provides=chatterino flag so they should be exclusive

By "I rename the files to look better in the GitHub releases" I mean I do that right now in CI, and have done so for the last release. I don't have any plans to rename them further. The release files in the Chatterino/pkg repo are not meant for direct consumption by users. They are meant as an intermediate tarball for consumption by AUR packages like this one.

What's blocking the Full RELRO check at the moment?

oech3 commented on 2025-04-27 19:31 (UTC)

Different build process may produce unbuildable AUR/chatterino2 and buildable AUR/chatterino2-bin at the same time.

I rename the files to look better in the GitHub releases

Thankyou. I recheck Full RELRO state after it.

pajlada commented on 2025-04-27 19:25 (UTC)

Please consider downstreaming those PKGBUILD to AUR.

I cannot easily downstream them to AUR if I want to customize the build process for CI (e.g. manually triggering a release for a specific release tag)

It cause confusing.

What's confusing about them? I'll explain what I can, or add comments to parts that are confusing

(Hmm... while docker image is Arch, why does namcap report source from GitHub corrupted?????)

namcap seems to rely on the package name matching what the .BUILDINFO or .PKGINFO file spit out. I rename the files to look better in the GitHub releases, since they're not meant for consumption via pacman

oech3 commented on 2025-04-27 19:04 (UTC)

Please consider downstreaming those PKGBUILD to AUR. It cause confusing.

(Hmm... while docker image is Arch, why does namcap report source from GitHub corrupted?????)

pajlada commented on 2025-04-27 18:55 (UTC)

It's not - everything is contained to the https://github.com/Chatterino/pkg repo

archlinux/stable and archlinux/nightly contains the PKGBUILD's, and .github/workflows/stable.yml and .github/workflows/nightly.yml do the CI work of spinning up docker images, building, and making releases

oech3 commented on 2025-04-27 18:48 (UTC)

I may misunderstanding something. Is current source from GitHub is based on makepkg and same PKGBUILD with https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/chatterino2 ?

pajlada commented on 2025-04-27 18:31 (UTC) (edited on 2025-04-27 18:31 (UTC) by pajlada)

To what CI are you referring?

oech3 commented on 2025-04-27 18:21 (UTC)

Is there any reason to avoid using makepkg or devtools of Arch at CI?

1 2 3 4 Next › Last »