Package Details: leftwm-git 0.5.1.r28.g765a1aeb-1

Git Clone URL: https://aur.archlinux.org/leftwm-git.git (read-only, click to copy)
Package Base: leftwm-git
Description: A tiling window manager for the adventurer (systemd init)
Upstream URL: https://github.com/leftwm/leftwm
Licenses: MIT
Conflicts: leftwm
Provides: leftwm
Submitter: lexchilds
Maintainer: lexchilds (lex148, VuiMuich, hertg, mautam)
Last Packager: mautam
Votes: 10
Popularity: 0.68
First Submitted: 2019-05-29 13:05 (UTC)
Last Updated: 2024-04-02 05:40 (UTC)

Dependencies (10)

Required by (4)

Sources (1)

Latest Comments

1 2 3 4 Next › Last »

VuiMuich commented on 2023-11-17 21:07 (UTC)

Just for future other readers, my intent was not to defend one user over the other, but just end a debate that is subjectively lead in the wrong place.

"Wrong place" in my opinion because in the first place it needs to be seen if it is a niche use case or a common issue and if its the latter it needs to be brought up to an audience that is able to do its wide scope duty. Otherwise it becomes pointless to fix a bunch of packages, but hundreds of others still fall for the same problem.

In general we are very open to new additions of features, but afaict we are following the packaging guidelines quite well. So if there is a reasonably argued addition and it is provided as a diff, patch or something else "low effort" for us to add it has tremulously better chances to be accepted then "please implement package-feature X".

Please keep in mind that at this point leftwm is a pure "fun project" and not a service or marketed product.

exploder-jimmy commented on 2023-11-17 12:52 (UTC)

Well, then I'd say the Wiki article on Rust Packaging guidlines (https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Rust_package_guidelines) would be the right place to discuss this matter, not the comments of individual packages.

@VuiMuich No discussion was intended at all. You maintainers would either agree or not.

My guess is (and I have no idea, if there is actual data on this somewhere) that most people use AUR helpers, which supposedly build in a clean chroot, no?

Well, there is no need to guess, simply open wiki article on AUR helpers and see that only three applications support building in chroot right now: aurutils, clean-chroot-manager, and paru. And only one of them is a full-fledged AUR helper (pacman wrapper).

I can see, where the first response by @elairevoyant could appear salty, but I don't think that was the intent. They are quite knowledgeable well beyond Arch/AUR packaging.

Well, I can't read people's minds like you do, I could only see a toxic elitist.

And also please refrain from accusations of picking the wrong tone etc. Thanks.

Really now. If you all would just put that energy in research and constructive replies instead of defending each other and your beliefs...

I just wanted to understand why someone would be so much against a completely harmless variable, instead I only got harassment and drama.

At least I got a reply from maintainer.
Thank you. Now I'm out of here.

VuiMuich commented on 2023-11-17 07:44 (UTC)

I can see, where the first response by @elairevoyant could appear salty, but I don't think that was the intent. They are quite knowledgeable well beyond Arch/AUR packaging.

are you going to ask every rust package

Yeah, I'm doing just that. And so far everyone agreed that it's a nice idea.

And

I've only suggested it to make life easier for everyone.

Well, then I'd say the Wiki article on Rust Packaging guidlines (https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Rust_package_guidelines) would be the right place to discuss this matter, not the comments of individual packages.

I've only suggested it to make life easier for everyone. My guess is (and I have no idea, if there is actual data on this somewhere) that most people use AUR helpers, which supposedly build in a clean chroot, no?

So please keep discussion on topics relevant to the actual package and not general packaging best practices. And also please refrain from accusations of picking the wrong tone etc. Thanks.

exploder-jimmy commented on 2023-11-17 00:34 (UTC)

You can set it yourself if it bothers you. PKGBUILDs are in fact editable.

Yeah, that's what I did. I've only suggested it to make life easier for everyone.

are you going to ask every rust package

Yeah, I'm doing just that. And so far everyone agreed that it's a nice idea.

to add some more boilerplate for your use case?

Not sure what that means.

But it's not just my use case. Do you really believe that even a quarter of AUR users build in clean chroot? I don't think so.

I suggested multiple solutions, while you command me as if you have some authority.

Wtf are you talking about?

From my point of view, you are the one who acts that way.

And by "commanded" you mean that I asked you to calm down and stop being toxic? I asked that because you have been toxic from the very beginning.

I think it's actually a useful thing to add, while you are being dismissive just because you don't like it.

Oh well. Enough is enough. Your attitude won't bring you any good, but I'm sorry if I offended you, I totally did not mean to.

eclairevoyant commented on 2023-11-16 22:25 (UTC) (edited on 2023-11-16 22:35 (UTC) by eclairevoyant)

You can set it yourself if it bothers you. PKGBUILDs are in fact editable.

Put another way: are you going to ask every rust package to add some more boilerplate for your use case? Or should you not just make the changes where you need to?

PS The only toxicity I've seen here is from you, I suggested multiple solutions, while you command me as if you have some authority. You do not, we are equals, so perhaps a mirror is in order :)

exploder-jimmy commented on 2023-11-16 22:23 (UTC) (edited on 2023-11-16 22:23 (UTC) by exploder-jimmy)

@eclairevoyant You seem to totally miss the point.

This is not about whether clear chroot is better than $CARGO_HOME for keeping user's $HOME clear of cargo.

This is about setting that variable for users who don't want to bother.

You are using clean chroot. Okay, cool.

What's harm in setting $CARGO_HOME?

If you are so bothered by it because you are already using it for your own reasons, it's possible to set it as export CARGO_HOME="${CARGO_HOME:-"$srcdir"/cargo}" instead.

Please calm down, and fix your toxic attitude.

eclairevoyant commented on 2023-11-16 16:15 (UTC)

Of course, there's nothing to debate. Clean chroot builds are objectively better.

https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/DeveloperWiki:Building_in_a_clean_chroot

If you cannot build in a clean chroot, then it's worth discussing, otherwise not really. Whether a package is in AUR or not is irrelevant, the build-time tools used (makepkg and base-devel and any specified dependencies) are the same.

exploder-jimmy commented on 2023-11-16 16:05 (UTC)

@eclairevoyant I have no intention to debate this with you here.

I will just say that the only time clean chroot is mentioned in wiki article on AUR is that it being a part of debugging the build failure.

eclairevoyant commented on 2023-11-16 14:55 (UTC)

it's how all Arch packages are meant to be built, otherwise the build gets polluted by the env. This is already explained on the wiki.

exploder-jimmy commented on 2023-11-16 14:52 (UTC)

@eclairevoyant Your passive aggression is not called for. Clean chroot is not a hard requirement for AUR.