As @allexj and others who see the "did not pass the validity check" message, try removing the cache dir for this package and then updating again (it worked for me):
rm -rf ~/.cache/pacaur/python2-bin
Git Clone URL: | https://aur.archlinux.org/python2-bin.git (read-only, click to copy) |
---|---|
Package Base: | python2-bin |
Description: | Python2 binaries for x86_64 |
Upstream URL: | https://python.org |
Keywords: | python2 |
Licenses: | PSF |
Conflicts: | python2 |
Provides: | python2 |
Submitter: | vanillabase1lb |
Maintainer: | vanillabase1lb |
Last Packager: | vanillabase1lb |
Votes: | 10 |
Popularity: | 0.22 |
First Submitted: | 2022-09-27 15:58 (UTC) |
Last Updated: | 2022-11-21 17:25 (UTC) |
As @allexj and others who see the "did not pass the validity check" message, try removing the cache dir for this package and then updating again (it worked for me):
rm -rf ~/.cache/pacaur/python2-bin
==> Validating source files with md5sums... python2-build.tar.gz ... FAILED ==> ERROR: One or more files did not pass the validity check! -> error making: python2-bin
Thanks @Fall, should work now.
Upgrading this package while having system python
installed results in this:
error: failed to commit transaction (conflicting files)
python2-bin: /usr/share/man/man1/python.1.gz exists in filesystem (owned by python)
Errors occurred, no packages were upgraded.
-> exit status 1
Patch/workaround that worked for me:
diff --git a/PKGBUILD b/PKGBUILD
index 62ef404..b99b072 100644
--- a/PKGBUILD
+++ b/PKGBUILD
@@ -34,6 +34,7 @@ package() {
rm python2-build/bin/pydoc
rm python2-build/bin/python
rm python2-build/bin/python-config
+ rm python2-build/share/man/man1/python.1
sed -i "s|/mnt/storage/temp/python2-build|/usr|" python2-build/bin/python${_pybasever}-config
sed -i "s|/mnt/storage/temp/python2-build|/usr|" python2-build/lib/pkgconfig/python-${_pybasever}.pc
I've reworked the PKGBUILD script and all the issues in previous comments seem to be resolved. Ping here if there is something else broken.
I concur with @eclairevoyant that having binaries built by unknown third parties and offered under official-sounding names is a dangerous practice.
Sure, and compiling every binaries over here on need and copy it instead of downloading binaries over the web
I don't mean it as jumping on mistakes or anything, everyone can make mistakes. My point is more that python never had binary releases for Linux so we have to rely on an unofficial binary package... doesn't seem like a good idea. It would be an easy way to add in extra code which to me is an unnecessary risk.
Also, to @bkb's point anyone who needs this package should be able to build the regular package on a better machine and simply copy it over to the machines that are weaker. Since this only supports x86_64 anyway, no need to even cross-compile.
I agree that this package has it's own place and that it needs a bit more work to be done. I will try to make it a bit cleaner when I get time, meanwhile any contributions are welcome.
If you have low computational power, high networking power, build a lot of Arch machines. I think it's useful, just that it needs a little bit more of caring
Pinned Comments
vanillabase1lb commented on 2022-09-27 16:07 (UTC)
Build flags and binaries present here - https://github.com/VanillaBase1lb/python2-bin-aur