On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 4:23 PM, Mauro Santos via arch-general < arch-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 23-06-2016 15:04, Andre "Osku" Schmidt via arch-general wrote: > > Hmm, > > > > so Archlinux has packer[0] that provides an executable named `packer` and > > now there is packer-io[1] that changes the upstream executable from > > `packer` to `packer-io`. > > > > Now i have a Makefile that runs packer-io[1] that fails on systems where > > its executable is not renamed to `packer-io`. (eg. everything[2] else > than > > Archlinux) > > > > I would like to provide the user a single command to build "my" software > > (eg. make), but am not sure what i should do. > > > > 1. Tell Archlinux users to manually alias/link `packer` pointing to > > `packer-io`? > > 2. Automagically try to findout the correct executable in Makefile? > > 3. Request a rename of packer[0] executable upstream? > > 4. Request a rename of packer-io[1] executable upstream? > > > > What would you do? > > > > Cheers > > .andre > > > > [0] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/packer/ > > [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/packer-io/ > > [2] at least Debian and MS-Windows > > > > Packer and packer-io, at first glance, seem to be different projects. > Even if they aren't different projects, both packages are in the AUR and > therefore unsupported. > > As far as I know the only officially supported way of building and > installing packages on Arch Linux is using makepkg and pacman. > yeah, those are two different projects with the same (upstream) executable name. packer : aur helper for pacman. packer-io : build tool for vagrant boxes. hmm, hang on. when archlinux never allow aur helpers in repo, only packer-io could land in archlinux repos. ergo its executable doesn't need to (officially) be renamed from `packer` to `packer-io`. :P i can live with that :D cheers .andre
