Package Details: paru 2.0.4-1

Git Clone URL: https://aur.archlinux.org/paru.git (read-only, click to copy)
Package Base: paru
Description: Feature packed AUR helper
Upstream URL: https://github.com/morganamilo/paru
Keywords: AUR helper pacman rust wrapper yay
Licenses: GPL-3.0-or-later
Submitter: Morganamilo
Maintainer: Morganamilo
Last Packager: Morganamilo
Votes: 973
Popularity: 22.58
First Submitted: 2020-10-19 00:43 (UTC)
Last Updated: 2024-09-20 18:50 (UTC)

Dependencies (6)

Sources (1)

Pinned Comments

haxie commented on 2023-05-26 17:45 (UTC)

you're better off contacting her via the github, this comments section is 90% "it's out of date" from people who didn't scroll down before posting

Latest Comments

« First ‹ Previous 1 .. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 .. 24 Next › Last »

MarsSeed commented on 2023-05-26 00:06 (UTC)

Based on this experience, my best recommendation is to add the following dependency to PKGBUILD:

depends=('libssl.so')

It will cause makepkg to create the package which depends on the main SO version available at build-time; currently:

Depends on: libssl.so=3-64

Or it would have been depends='libssl.so=1.1-64' last August, and pacman would have been automatically able to decide that today my locally built paru needs the openssl-1.1 package and not the main 'openssl' one which is at v3.0.

haxie commented on 2023-05-26 00:03 (UTC)

@MarsSeed OpenSSL is a dependency of multiple of paru's dependencies, including pacman itself.

It's a common theme across many packages on the AUR, specifically those built from source, that they will need to be rebuilt after an OpenSSL version bump. You are not the first to encounter this, and will not be the last. Take a look at the arch subreddit or in the IRC channels any time this has happened in the past, it's a support nightmare.

That package hook didn't work simply because paru doesn't specify a required OpenSSL, it just builds against your current system's version... as a result, there is no way for the PKGBUILD to signify what version it requires, and so cannot warn you against removing an old OpenSSL version.

I'll hazard a guess that not just paru broke with you randomly removing openssl 1.1 I suggest not removing packages from your system unless you're sure that it will not break something.

MarsSeed commented on 2023-05-25 23:49 (UTC) (edited on 2023-05-25 23:50 (UTC) by MarsSeed)

Breaking issue: openssl is an undeclared dependency.

To make matters worse, the build process links to the latest openssl installed, version-dependently.

The last time I built paru was in Aug 2022, and my binary got linked to v1.1 of openssl package.

Today Arch's openssl's main version is 3.0.

I uninstalled openssl-1.1 today using paru, and after that, paru refused to work:

$ paru -Rns openssl-1.1
checking dependencies...

Package (1)  Old Version  Net Change  
openssl-1.1  1.1.1.t-1       -5.52 MiB

Total Removed Size:    5.52 MiB

:: Do you want to remove these packages? [Y/n] y
:: Processing package changes...
(1/1) removing openssl-1.1     [----------] 100%
[...]

$ paru -Syu
paru: error while loading shared libraries: libssl.so.1.1: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory

I had to rebuild paru in order for it to be linked to openssl 3.0.

And due to my system having had both openssl 3.0 and openssl 1.1 installed, my check-broken-packages-pacman-hook-git did not notify me that paru was linked to the old openssl-1.1 and in need of a rebuild.

rezad commented on 2023-05-15 03:29 (UTC)

@motolav maybe just increase the number so that it is no longer confusing.

motolav commented on 2023-05-14 15:48 (UTC)

@Fira paru isn't out of date, 1.11.2 isn't an update of the source code just a recompiled binary

PolarianDev commented on 2023-04-16 14:12 (UTC)

@ravenghast @meezookee @batot

Please could you stop arguing over the package in the comments, at this point it has become malicious.

Please review the code of conduct: https://terms.archlinux.org/docs/code-of-conduct/

Furthermore if you want to continue this argument, take it to emails (offlist) or PM on IRC, please stop polluting the comment section of the package.

meezookee commented on 2023-04-15 14:46 (UTC)

Suggesting that the project will be abandoned from the fact that there are no commits in 5 months sounds like misinterpreting the facts to me...

batot commented on 2023-04-13 06:15 (UTC) (edited on 2023-04-13 06:16 (UTC) by batot)

@haxie - Man please start read comments. I'm not attacking anyone, you're misinterpreting the facts. I'm just stating the facts, the author has not been active anywhere in AUR or GIT for over 5 months. I will not comment on repeated and irrelevant statements.

« First ‹ Previous 1 .. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 .. 24 Next › Last »