Arch Linux User Repository

Noted! Thank you!

Hi, I have no time to maintain this package at the moment, added you as a co-maintainer & disowned, you should now be able to keep it going easily. Thank you!

I have a package following the instructions at https://www.roc-lang.org/install/linux_x86_64 tracking the rolling alpha3 release at https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/roc-nightly-bin-alpha3. I am happy to merge into this package if that's helpful or maintain it separately, whatever's best. This is my first AUR package so feedback is appreciated.

Fails building with:

Using directory name roc_nightly-linux_x86_64-2025-03-04-3da0934/
cp: cannot stat 'roc_nightly-linux_x86_64-2025-03-04-3da0934//crates': No such file or directory
==> ERROR: A failure occurred in package().
    Aborting...
 -> error making: roc-nightly-bin-exit status 4
 -> Failed to install the following packages. Manual intervention is required:
roc-nightly-bin - exit status 4

At the moment the glue code for either zig or rust is not part of the nightly releases, and thus would need to be scoured from compiler sources directly, which will probably end up getting broken every few days. For now the best option if you need glue is to download the roc sources. I have an issue open for the glue code to be added into the nightly releases https://github.com/roc-lang/roc/issues/6299. If you can develop a reliable way to pull in the glue code and separate it cleanly from the rest of compiler sources I'd be happy to package it as well.

Thsi compiler requires that in certan cases either file crates/compiler/builtins/bitcode/src/glue.zig or lib/glue.zig exist. Could we patch it or install into different directory?

Since roc is reusing a whole bunch of other software internally, I concede it would not hurt to have licenses redistributed just in case. As for examples I'm uncertain if they are truly useful, but since it is just 400kbytes its probably no big deal. Please enjoy=)

Distributing the license file is just good practice, although not a requirement:

The above copyright notice and either this complete permission notice or at a minimum a reference to the UPL must be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

Distributing the examples makes it smoother for newcomers who can immediately check those out and play with them rather than having to clone them separately.

There are precedents for both things, you'll probably get several hits with fd LICENSE /usr/share/**/doc and fd -t directory examples /usr/share.

Anyways, just a kind suggestion/request, feel free to ignore.

Most other packages do not do that. How would that make the UX of the roc users any better other than polluting the disk with unnecessary files? The license is not requiring a copy of itself to be distributed.

hi, I think it would be good form to also install the LICENSE file that comes with the upstream tar package (e.g. as /usr/share/roc-nightly/doc/LICENSE) and the examples (e.g. at /usr/share/roc-nightly/examples).