https://labs.parabola.nu/https://labs.parabola.nu/favicon.ico?15367742552015-04-17T21:08:03ZParabola Issue TrackerPackages - Packaging Request #698: Split 'Libre' repo to 'Libre' and 'Parabola rebranded' reposhttps://labs.parabola.nu/issues/698?journal_id=57902015-04-17T21:08:03Zmtjmmtjm@mtjm.eu
<ul></ul><p>This requires either including Arch-branded packages (violating the FSDG and misleading our and their users) or maintaining a separate set of unbranded packages.</p> Packages - Packaging Request #698: Split 'Libre' repo to 'Libre' and 'Parabola rebranded' reposhttps://labs.parabola.nu/issues/698?journal_id=57912015-04-17T21:15:44Zlukeshulukeshu@parabola.nu
<ul></ul><p>daimonion: What do you want to accomplish?</p>
<p>mtjm: Not at all. I think daimonion is asking that we have a [parabola] repo with pacman, filesystem, etc, and not have them in [libre]; that is: the exact packages we have now, but some of them moved into a different repo. I think he's trying to use [libre] on Arch without switching to Parabola.</p> Packages - Packaging Request #698: Split 'Libre' repo to 'Libre' and 'Parabola rebranded' reposhttps://labs.parabola.nu/issues/698?journal_id=57922015-04-17T22:34:32ZAnonymous
<ul></ul><p><a class="user active" href="https://labs.parabola.nu/users/21">lukeshu</a>: Exactly, I want to use [libre] repo on Arch but without entirely switching to Parabola (at least for now).</p>
<p>Reasoning: I'm already using IceWeasel from your [libre] repo, and I'm thinking of using 3 or 4 more packages (so that I don't have to compile libre versions of them myself, like I'm doing now), and updating them automaticaly would be nice thing to have. But I don't want to use Parabola's versions of pacman, abs, grub, filesystem and other packages. At least not for now. I've been using Arch for 7 years now, and it's kinda hard to change it to something new all of a sudden. :)</p> Packages - Packaging Request #698: Split 'Libre' repo to 'Libre' and 'Parabola rebranded' reposhttps://labs.parabola.nu/issues/698?journal_id=57932015-04-18T20:08:40Zalfplayeralfplayer@mailoo.org
<ul></ul><p>I think switching to [libre] is easy enough so I recommed this issue gets closed. I prefer the other direction, that is, joining repositories rather than splitting.</p>
Anyway, some ideas to script it, to show how to do it now:
<ul>
<li>cron a script using rsstail which fetches <a class="external" href="https://www.parabola.nu/feeds/packages/">https://www.parabola.nu/feeds/packages/</a>, greps the packages you want (including dependencies), and then pacman -U <a class="external" href="https://www.parabola.nu/packages/libre/i686/iceweasel/download/">https://www.parabola.nu/packages/libre/i686/iceweasel/download/</a></li>
<li>Similar but using any git notifier like "git dude" fetching abslibre.git</li>
</ul> Packages - Packaging Request #698: Split 'Libre' repo to 'Libre' and 'Parabola rebranded' reposhttps://labs.parabola.nu/issues/698?journal_id=57962015-04-18T20:32:42Zlukeshulukeshu@parabola.nu
<ul></ul><p>I use this script <a class="external" href="https://lukeshu.com/dump/arch-import.sh">https://lukeshu.com/dump/arch-import.sh</a> to make a local repo of specific packages to import from a foreign repo. I mostly use it for testing if a bug is present in the Arch version of a package also. It shouldn't be hard to adapt it to go the other way.</p>
<p>As for switching to Parabola: I strongly encourage you to. It is almost exactly Arch, but instead of taking the extra steps to be free, you'd be taking the steps to use whatever non-free stuff you want/need.</p>
<p>alfplayer: Meanwhile, I do support splitting [libre] into [{core,extra,community}-libre] or similar :)</p> Packages - Packaging Request #698: Split 'Libre' repo to 'Libre' and 'Parabola rebranded' reposhttps://labs.parabola.nu/issues/698?journal_id=172672022-04-23T20:46:31Zbill-auger
<ul><li><strong>Status</strong> changed from <i>open</i> to <i>wont-fix</i></li></ul><p>i dont think this could be done in a logical way - libre is primarily for blacklist replacements - if someone wants to use the libre repo, it is obviously because of the blacklist replacements, which pacman is one - parabola's pacman behaves exactly as arch pacman does, for all that most people would notice</p>
<p>i would be in favor of a new repo which would take all libre packages which are not blacklist replacements - that makes more sense to me; but i dont think that is what the OP is asking for - it is not obvious where is the line that the OP wants to draw</p>