Package Details: sourcetrail 2025.4.1-2

Git Clone URL: https://aur.archlinux.org/sourcetrail.git (read-only, click to copy)
Package Base: sourcetrail
Description: Interactive source explorer for C/C++ and Java
Upstream URL: https://github.com/petermost/Sourcetrail
Licenses: GPL-3.0-only
Submitter: jetm
Maintainer: xiota
Last Packager: xiota
Votes: 24
Popularity: 0.24
First Submitted: 2017-04-12 15:18 (UTC)
Last Updated: 2025-05-03 03:15 (UTC)

Dependencies (22)

Required by (0)

Sources (1)

Pinned Comments

xiota commented on 2024-06-20 03:07 (UTC) (edited on 2025-02-02 07:22 (UTC) by xiota)

After 2023.11, patching is required to build on Arch. This package uses a secondary repo to make managing changes easier. Further details in the readme.

Please observe the following when flagging or commenting:

  • Flag for standard packaging issues, like depends updates and typos.
  • Comment for issues requiring explanation or debugging.
    • Do not paste large blocks of text. Use a pastebin.
    • Consider using the github issue tracker.
    • Problems that are not Arch-specific may be referred further upstream.

Versions associated with major requirement changes.

  • 2025.2.0 – clang 19, Qt6.
  • 2024.7.3 – clang 18, Qt6.
  • 2024.6.1 – clang 17, Qt6.
  • 2023.11 – clang 14, Qt5.

Latest Comments

1 2 3 4 5 Next › Last »

xiota commented on 2025-04-02 22:51 (UTC)

@bionade24 I'm not interested in arguing about maintenance decisions. Your veiled accusations are unwelcome, and you do not get to decide what is "only a minor inconvenience" for others. Anyone can fork or patch as they see fit. There are distros that routinely build from their own forks or copies, and they are often used as a backup source when originals are taken offline. The petermost fork is itself a fork. Anyone who doesn't like my changes is free build without them.

bionade24 commented on 2025-04-02 10:58 (UTC) (edited on 2025-04-02 10:58 (UTC) by bionade24)

@xiota: Thanks for the response & the quick update. I understand your reasoning about having the vendored repo, but there's a reason why distros don't do this and additionally prefer downloading patches from upstream instead of providing those themselves: It makes the pkg very hard to check for malice, especially if not all commits in the vendored repo are gpg signed. I may trust you to have no malicious intends, but I don't want to trust you not getting hacked. And no, using patches isn't that cumbersome that you can't do it, it's only a minor inconvenience.

As 2 side notes:
- cp --reflink=auto is the default nowadays, no need to be explicit (maybe Arch's coreutils are outdated, if so, forget it)
- You don't have to increase the pkgrel to push changes to the AUR git. No need for a bump when removing a dep and changing nothing else.

xiota commented on 2025-03-31 20:09 (UTC) (edited on 2025-03-31 20:18 (UTC) by xiota)

@bionade24 Use of archlinux-java-run is not a "bug". I haven't decided what to do yet. Even if I do decide to remove it, it's not worth a bump to force everyone to rebuild.

As noted in the pinned comment and secondary repo readme, after 2023.11, sourcetrail required significant patching to build on Arch Linux. The petermost fork also had other issues that aren't worth describing in detail. Consequently, as noted in the readme, version tags that this package uses may not match upstream. All of this was easier to manage with a secondary repo than an ad hoc collection of patches. (As noted in the readme, extra commits/patches are in branches.)

2025.3.3 was the first version that did not require patching (outside of PKGBUILD) to build, but did introduce a minor logic error while trying to further "fix" a bug that had already been fixed (and had been patched for this package long before that). So without the secondary repo, this package would have been out of service for over a year, and some patches may need to be reintroduced.

I am considering switching this package back to the petermost fork, but will not do so until I am satisfied that it is in reasonable condition to avoid switching back and forth.

bionade24 commented on 2025-03-31 16:22 (UTC) (edited on 2025-03-31 16:29 (UTC) by bionade24)

@xiota: May you please at least respond? An unnecessary dependency is a bug and I don't want to abuse the out of date button to get attention.

On another note, why do you vendor the real upstream git repo instead of using it directly? As far as I've seen, there are no changes made by you in the "forked" repo source, as long as you don't have purposefully changed your git username in commits to it (which seems unlikely after a quick review).

bionade24 commented on 2025-03-07 18:19 (UTC)

Why the additional makedependency on archlinux-java-run just for specifiying the java version to run? Just prefix the command with `JAVA_HOME=/usr/lib/jvm/java-<nr>-openjdk PATH="/usr/lib/jvm/java-<nr>-openjdk/bin:$PATH <your_cmd>". It isn't really necessary.

xiota commented on 2025-03-06 23:49 (UTC) (edited on 2025-03-06 23:51 (UTC) by xiota)

2025.3.3 builds with minimal patching. Will monitor and consider dropping secondary repo if need for significant patching does not return.

Also, added sodeps to prevent breaks from boost upgrades. Before rebuilding, force upgrades with pacman -Syudd.

xiota commented on 2025-01-02 14:47 (UTC)

@catHeadCoffee The code in that file at those lines is several years old. If this is an Arch Linux specific issue, please open an issue at the repo this package builds from to explain the symptoms. Otherwise, please confirm whether the petermost fork is affected and report there.

catHeadCoffee commented on 2025-01-02 13:09 (UTC) (edited on 2025-01-02 13:10 (UTC) by catHeadCoffee)

sourcetrail/src/sourcetrail/src/lib/data/search/SearchIndex.cpp

  454         // first letter
  455         if (index == 0)
  456         {
  457             firstLetterScore += firstLetterBonus;
! 458         } else if (index >= text.size() || index >= text.size() - 1) {
+ 459             continue;                                                                                                                                
+ 460         }

The character here is out of bounds. need fix.

jacek2v commented on 2024-07-07 06:14 (UTC) (edited on 2024-07-07 06:14 (UTC) by jacek2v)

@xiota super thanks :)

So, sorry for the unnecessary confusion

1 2 3 4 5 Next › Last »