Arch Linux User Repository

oech, sorry for being an ass, I didn't mean to discourage you. I'm just old and grumpy, especially when something I use breaks. I kept your idea of splitting the package, although I'm not completely sure. Because according to the diff, the sdk differs not only in the presence of additional files.

Binary files nwjs-v0.101.2-linux-x64/lib/libnw.so and nwjs-sdk-v0.101.2-linux-x64/lib/libnw.so differ
Binary files nwjs-v0.101.2-linux-x64/resources.pak and nwjs-sdk-v0.101.2-linux-x64/resources.pak differ

Otherwise, everything seems to be working as before.

Disowned before adding desktop entry and flag files.

Still broken.

:: Processing package changes...
(1/1) upgrading nwjs-bin                                                 [########################################] 100%
warning: directory permissions differ on /usr/lib/nwjs/lib/
filesystem: 700  package: 755
warning: directory permissions differ on /usr/lib/nwjs/swiftshader/
filesystem: 700  package: 755
:: Running post-transaction hooks...
(1/1) Arming ConditionNeedsUpdate...
[lufog@archlinux nwjs-bin]$ nw 
nw: error while loading shared libraries: libnw.so: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory

Frankly speaking, I don't like the latest changes at all, and I don't have time or desire to argue. I'll just add this PKGBUILD to the ignored ones, and update it locally, without your changes.

Also Chromium based app under /opt is not friendly for NoExtract at pacman.conf to exclude somethings.

Please remove pkgs once and reinstall.

Binaries under /opt produces many warnings at namcap. I use /opt if multimedia files are included, or repackage .deb,.rpm including /opt.

Does tar or bsdtar can discard bundled permissions something like --no-same-permissions --no-same-owner?

It is better not to rely on the correct permissions in the archive. Permissions are usually set at the packaging stage.

package() {
  install -Dm755 "$srcdir"/app/myexec.sh -t "$pkgdir"/usr/bin/
  install -Dm644 "$srcdir"/app/data.db   -t "$pkgdir"/usr/lib/myapp/
}

/opt is not recommmended by packaging guideline.

I have not seen such a recommendation, moreover: https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Arch_package_guidelines#Directories

For example, google-chrome from AUR, or intel-oneapi-* from the official repo, are installed in /opt.

Does tar or bsdtar can discard bundled permissions something like --no-same-permissions --no-same-owner?

*.pak is internally used only for debug, not a translation of actual app itself (tell me if it is wrong).

/opt is not recommmended by packaging guideline.

@oech3, there are some problems:

1. /usr/bin/nw must be executable.
2. now when I try to run nw I get: nw: error while loading shared libraries: libnw.so: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory

Also, I think it was not worth moving self-contained application from /opt. And, I have some questions about decisions made in the PKGBUILD, for example: using install for a trivial folder creation (why not mkdir?), moving all locales except en-US to sdk (why?). Also, all these parses, to print ffmpeg version, do they make practical sense? Because the AUR user must dig into all of this during the pre-installation revision of the PKGBUILD.