Package Details: zig-git 0.15.0.r769.g4d7980645961-1

Git Clone URL: https://aur.archlinux.org/zig-git.git (read-only, click to copy)
Package Base: zig-git
Description: General-purpose programming language and toolchain
Upstream URL: https://ziglang.org/
Keywords: compiler language programming zig ziglang
Licenses: MIT
Conflicts: zig
Provides: zig
Submitter: PedroHLC
Maintainer: wgottwalt
Last Packager: wgottwalt
Votes: 14
Popularity: 0.82
First Submitted: 2016-08-09 17:43 (UTC)
Last Updated: 2025-06-10 05:21 (UTC)

Required by (19)

Sources (2)

Latest Comments

1 2 3 4 5 6 Next › Last »

wgottwalt commented on 2025-05-12 16:58 (UTC) (edited on 2025-05-12 17:03 (UTC) by wgottwalt)

Okay, lets try the calm approach. You really got me on the wrong foot. I get AI created non-sense reports every day (not here, I actually write a lot of c/c++ code and "playing" maintainer is just a hobby to give something back) and in your first post you did something I very often see in these AI reports, they drop crucial parts. And also writing that you didn't test it (and I spotted right away that this is not going to build and the all-knowing authority thing was not helpful) did actually make it worse. Actually, your "(which I thank you for)" made me rethink this. I will update the PKGBUILD file. About the rules, it is actually a log time ago I read them. 2019 I think. Yeah, the versioning part changed quite a lot... Oh boy, need to do this for the really big packages, too...

vitaliikuzhdin commented on 2025-05-12 16:15 (UTC)

@wgottwalt,

You made suggestions which end up in the package not building.

I reported to you a problem and suggested a fix which may or may not work since I can't test it. It is your responsibility as the maintainer to investigate and fix the issue, not necessarily to apply my suggestion as-is.

The package builds fine, runs fine and behaves like it should.

Just because the package builds and runs fine doesn't mean it's correct. Packaging a VCS package means copying the PKGBUILD from the official repos, adding the VCS parts (versioning, provides/conflicts, etc), and fixing any issues that might arise. I'm glad you were able to copy the files and fix the build, but there is also a VCS part to it, which is clearly incorrect. I even named a specific problem people are having with it. I don't know why you're denying it.

You are not entitled to have that package (or have it fixed), this is open source and that is completely voluntary. I did not have to change a working version for this (just in case you didn't get it, that package was dormant). You can be happy that I was willing to go through the process to grab the dormant package, provide a working makefile, find the build issues and fix them and then provide it here. So please, be so kind and put your entitlement somewhere else.

For as long as you are the maintainer, I am very well entitled to expect you to fix it. Yes, AUR is volunteer-based, and you can be sure I wasn't paid a cent for any of my packages either. The volunteer part means we need to appreciate each other's work (which I thank you for), but it does not free you from responsibilities. When you press the "Adopt Package" button, you're expected to actually maintain it instead of justifying incorrect packaging with the fact that it’s voluntary. If you're not willing to maintain it, orphan it and let someone else take over. And if you really want to have it your way, which breaks the AUR rules, "change it in your local copy..."

Judging by the comment below that had to explicitly ask you to add the provides and conflicts arrays, and your quick reply, it seems you still haven't read the rules for the package you're maintaining. I don't know why that is, but please either fix the package or provide an actual error you're getting if you want to keep replying.

wgottwalt commented on 2025-05-12 09:15 (UTC) (edited on 2025-05-12 09:17 (UTC) by wgottwalt)

No, I just stated that you did not build it. You made suggestions which end up in the package not building. Everything else, like assuming my intentions, is meta and happens in your head. The package builds fine, runs fine and behaves like it should. You are not entitled to have that package (or have it fixed), this is opensource and that is completely voluntary. I did not had to change a working version for this (just in case you didn't get it, that package was dormant). You can be happy that I was willing to went trough the process to grab the dormant package, provide a working makefile, find the build issues and fix them and then provide it here. So please, be so kind and put your entitlement somewhere else. And if you are not happy with it, change it in your local copy...

vitaliikuzhdin commented on 2025-05-12 08:59 (UTC)

@wgottwalt, and it clearly shows you haven't read the article I linked, the one you should have read before submitting a -git package.

I was contacted about an issue in my package because I used depends=('zig>=0.14.0'), and it was reported that zig-git doesn't satisfy this requirement due to its incorrect version scheme. I reported this issue to you accordingly. I also explicitly stated that I physically can't test it myself, which means you, as the maintainer, are responsible for fixing it. I’m not even required to provide you with anything; it’s your package, your responsibility to either fix it or disown it if you’re unable or unwilling to maintain it.

Instead, you neither fixed the issue nor explained why. I'm not sure why you're acting like an all-knowing authority forced to deal with "lesser beings," but your gatekeeping is now leaving you without support. Reading a wiki article doesn’t require a high-end PC, so there’s no excuse not to. Please go read the guidelines and correct the obvious mistakes. You would have seen them already if you had actually followed the documentation.

wgottwalt commented on 2025-05-12 04:05 (UTC)

Yeah, it clearly shows that you did not build it... you would have noticed something, which is actually mentioned in the changelogs.

vitaliikuzhdin commented on 2025-05-12 00:14 (UTC)

The current version scheme is incorrect and fails to provide, for example, zig>=0.14.0. Please update the package to follow the VCS package guidelines:

--- a/PKGBUILD
+++ b/PKGBUILD
@@ -9,22 +9,18 @@
 license=('MIT')
 options=('!lto')
 conflicts=(zig)
-replaces=(zig)
-provides=(zig)
+provides=("zig=${pkgver%%.r*}")
 depends=("clang>=19.1" icu libffi libxml2 "lld>=19.1" "llvm-libs>=19.1" ncurses xz zlib zstd)
 makedepends=(cmake "llvm>=19.1")
 checkdepends=(lib32-glibc)
-source=("git+https://github.com/ziglang/zig#branch=0.14.x"
+source=("git+https://github.com/ziglang/zig.git"
         "skip-localhost-test.patch")
 sha256sums=('SKIP'
             'eeb5f0f72035c52bf558ffc77a171a3ddf93eac7d663ef0c82826007763717a8')

 pkgver() {
   cd zig
-  local _tag="$(git describe --tags --abbrev=0)"
-  local _hash="$(git rev-parse --short HEAD)"
-  _tag="${_tag%-*}"
-  echo "${_tag##v}.git+${_hash}"
+  git describe --long --tags --abbrev=7 | sed 's/v//;s/\([^-]*-g\)/r\1/;s/-/./g'
 }

 prepare() {

Note that I haven't actually tested this because I don't have the resources to clone and build repositories as big as this one, so please adjust if this fails.

plp commented on 2025-04-22 07:44 (UTC)

Thanks for maintaining zig-git.

Could you please add provides=(zig) to the PKGBUILD? Without that, any package that depends on zig tries to uninstall it and install extra/zig instead.

leopoldek commented on 2024-06-24 14:26 (UTC) (edited on 2024-06-24 14:28 (UTC) by leopoldek)

I'm not entirely sure llvm-git will work either since it compiles llvm19 and I believe zig specifically asks for llvm18. If you want to use latest zig your best bet is probably zig-dev-bin.

yataro commented on 2024-06-23 06:29 (UTC)

I can't see the right way to update this... Zig requires not only llvm>=18, but clang>=18 as well. The only thing you can do is install llvm-git and zig should be built just fine (I don't like the idea of swapping llvm for llvm-git, so I can't test it).

1 2 3 4 5 6 Next › Last »