Arch Linux User Repository

In the meantime, if a user wants a quick way to get pre-build of Scratch, this package which is a fork, may fill the void in the meantime. https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/turbowarp-desktop-bin

Upstream are not updating their distributable so this will stay not updated until they do.

Good day maintainers and contributors. I'm Jason and I maintain the AUR/scratch3. I recently fixed the mimetypes for Scratch files based on the best available sources and documentation from the upstream. Here's my xml file: https://aur.archlinux.org/cgit/aur.git/tree/scratch3.xml?h=scratch3

Currently the only mimetypes based from upstream are the following: application/x-scratch-project application/x.scratch.sb3 application/x.scratch.sprite3

I'm proposing we synchronize our mimetypes based on the xml file I made so we can have consistent mimetypes across install. We will also be able to fix this workaround by the upstream due to AUR's wrong mimetype: https://github.com/scratchfoundation/scratch-editor/blob/c9a6691dcad50a38d637b5b52d0ee806964a9ce6/packages/scratch-gui/src/lib/file-uploader.js#L214

In the meantime, if a user wants a quick way to get pre-build of Scratch, this package which is a fork, may fill the void in the meantime. https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/turbowarp-desktop-bin

@Namarrgon i hear you, its in the works, mostly focused on sourcing pre-builds for the newer version.

I am mostly just fixing the builds for this package, the LICENSE file hash changed, simple fix.

Bottom line, this package is a "-bin", so for it to be updated, it has to source binaries, Scratch likely don't offer up-to-date binaries for desktop anymore.

The ideal source only namespace is taken by 'scratch-desktop' which is a binary package that uses the same source as this one, despite the lack of the '-bin' suffix(which implies build-from-source), Maybe you could ask https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/scratch-desktop maintainer to update theirs in the meantime, to be a build-from-source package (that wont have the same issue as me, they can use the upstream build recipe, in the pkgbuild).

@joshmaybal Apologies for the long exodus, here is an update.

The upstream builds from the Scratch team at (https://scratch.mit.edu/download) doesn't seem to be updated anymore, 3.29.1 was the last build served. (but the new local web build is, they modularised it for better device).

The difficulty is this is a '-bin' package, so compilation isn't an option unless we are making a new listing.

I would opt to adopt the scratch-desktop package if i were doing a non binary package, unfortunately even though its not a -bin package, it uses the same method as this one here that i adopted.

The real upstream source is here: https://github.com/scratchfoundation/scratch-desktop

Largely official builds on linux are supported(if you build yourself), there has been lots discussion on this, and it seems they aren't interested in official builds as of when i last checked.

Just today i was revisiting Scratux to see if there is a way i could integrate some packaging concepts into this as a binary package(AppImage) by finding build servers or making my own (no promises on the latter).

For GNU/Linux packaging, i was looking here: https://github.com/scratux-revived/scratux

Will keep you updated, but just in-case you wondered about that.

I will see what work i can do on this problem today, i can't promise it will be resolved today as the underlying build system this uses is obsolete.

is this going to get updated.. or..?

When you update this to the current version, could you please adjust the description to something more descriptive? I know that the current one is from upstream but something like "Scratch3 electron-based desktop IDE" explains a lot more.

I volunteer to adopt this package, ive also as of today, emailed the maintainer personally. I also sent an orphan request 14 days ago and as of today, marked it as outdated. I would advice people avoid to using this package(including uninstalling existing copies) until it gets updated again, since the version tagged is more than 3 years outdated. and there are attack vectors like sharing code/extensions which could be a risk, i did a brief CVE search and found nothing affecting this version, but balance of probability is, there is likely a vuln in this tagged version, it might be mentioned in the github issues somewhere if anyone wants to dig for it.

Failed to install:

==> Validating source files with sha256sums...
    Scratch%203.29.1%20Setup.exe ... Passed
    LICENSE ... FAILED
    scratch3.desktop ... Passed
    scratch3-icons.tar.gz ... Passed
    scratch3.xml ... Passed
==> ERROR: One or more files did not pass the validity check!
error: failed to download sources for 'scratch3-bin-3.29.1-2': 
error: packages failed to build: scratch3-bin-3.29.1-2