Package Details: yt-dlp-git 2023.07.06.r143.g5fccabac2-1

Git Clone URL: https://aur.archlinux.org/yt-dlp-git.git (read-only, click to copy)
Package Base: yt-dlp-git
Description: A youtube-dl fork with additional features and fixes (git)
Upstream URL: https://github.com/yt-dlp/yt-dlp
Licenses: Unlicense
Conflicts: yt-dlp
Provides: yt-dlp
Submitter: katt
Maintainer: katt
Last Packager: katt
Votes: 39
Popularity: 1.76
First Submitted: 2021-08-08 15:20 (UTC)
Last Updated: 2023-09-21 17:48 (UTC)

Dependencies (21)

Required by (105)

Sources (1)

Latest Comments

1 2 3 4 5 6 .. 8 Next › Last »

katt commented on 2023-09-21 17:41 (UTC)

@kozaki Cannot reproduce here, but since it's about networking it's probably something with your network.

kozaki commented on 2023-09-21 08:51 (UTC)

yt-dlp-git compilation fails for a few months here: 'TestHTTPRequestHandler.test_gzip_trailing_garbage[Urllib]' with 'ConnectionRefusedError: [Errno 111] Connection refused' and 'yt_dlp.networking.exceptions.TransportError: [Errno 111] Connection refused'.
Using Python-3.11.5. Upstream (as in github/yt-dlp) binary works.

gesh commented on 2023-09-13 07:44 (UTC)

If the long build times annoy you, you can always run makepkg with --nocheck. Don't recommend it - have run into broken builds in other packages before (eg pandoc-crossref sometimes takes a while to adapt to pandoc changes)

katt commented on 2023-09-13 05:07 (UTC)

@CompWizard With that logic, no package should have check(), since obviously the developer has already tested the commits. (or not)

CompWizard commented on 2023-09-12 22:09 (UTC)

Shouldn't the tests be disabled? They just slow down building for nothing. I suppose, all commits, pushed to github, are already tested.

katt commented on 2023-07-30 15:06 (UTC)

@ruro I'd appreciate it, I do try to stay as close as possible to the repo packages for my -git packages. Plus if I am truly doing something super duper wrong, the package that most people use should probably be targeted first.

I am also just in general against forcing dependencies upon people, but I am not impossible to persuade.

ruro commented on 2023-07-30 13:52 (UTC)

@katt ah, sorry, by "upstream" I meant https://github.com/yt-dlp/yt-dlp. I kind of forgot that the non-git version of yt-dlp is available in the ABS. I can report the issue there, if you want, if you treat them as a reference point.

katt commented on 2023-07-30 11:54 (UTC)

@ruro I actually don't see a single ticket being opened (or closed) for yt-dlp on bugs.archlinux.org, which is where I meant for you to steer your complaints.

ruro commented on 2023-07-30 10:56 (UTC)

@katt just to be clear, the issue was already raised upstream and the official answer was that 1) they don't "recommend" installing the package without its "optional" dependencies and 2) if downstream distributors insist on providing a "dependency-free" install, they should patch out the missing dependencies from requirements.txt or install_requires in setup.py.

Currently, pip check CORRECTLY complains about the missing dependencies that are currently declared as non-optional in the installed python package metadata. Either these packages should be installed, or they should be removed from the python metadata. Your lack of care is somewhat understandable, but I think that "well, it works for me" isn't a very productive attitude to have for package maintainers.

katt commented on 2023-07-30 10:39 (UTC)

@ruro You should report this to the package in the repos if you really think it's a problem.

Also as to what pip check complains about I couldn't possibly care less about. The application works perfectly without them installed (aside for the optional parts, of course).

1 2 3 4 5 6 .. 8 Next › Last »