Package Details: nwjs-bin 0.111.2-1

Git Clone URL: https://aur.archlinux.org/nwjs-bin.git (read-only, click to copy)
Package Base: nwjs-bin
Description: Runtime based on Chromium and node.js
Upstream URL: https://nwjs.io
Keywords: node-webkit nw.js
Licenses: MIT
Provides: node-webkit, nwjs
Submitter: yan12125
Maintainer: lufog
Last Packager: lufog
Votes: 54
Popularity: 0.005598
First Submitted: 2015-08-14 09:25 (UTC)
Last Updated: 2026-05-12 04:28 (UTC)

Dependencies (6)

Sources (3)

Latest Comments

« First ‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next › Last »

oech3 commented on 2025-07-20 18:49 (UTC)

Disowned before adding desktop entry and flag files.

lufog commented on 2025-07-20 18:37 (UTC) (edited on 2025-07-20 18:42 (UTC) by lufog)

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.

oech3 commented on 2025-07-20 18:00 (UTC)

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

oech3 commented on 2025-07-20 17:56 (UTC)

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.

lufog commented on 2025-07-20 17:22 (UTC) (edited on 2025-07-20 17:55 (UTC) by lufog)

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.

oech3 commented on 2025-07-20 16:31 (UTC)

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.

lufog commented on 2025-07-20 16:06 (UTC) (edited on 2025-07-20 16:20 (UTC) by lufog)

@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.

oech3 commented on 2025-07-05 06:05 (UTC)

I consider this should be named with it's major version as seen as electron* for compability.

« First ‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next › Last »