search

sidneys / pb-for-desktop

The missing Desktop application for Pushbullet.
https://sidneys.github.io/pb-for-desktop
MIT License
508 stars 43 forks source link

Installing on Arch #84

Closed SethGower closed 6 years ago

SethGower commented 6 years ago

I am not sure how to install this on Arch. There is a pb-for-desktop-7.0.0.pacman in the releases, but as far as I know, that isn't an arch package, even though for some reason it is named .pacman. How do I install this on arch.

ayekat commented 6 years ago

It is worth noting that the package is a valid pacman package file (and can thus be installed with pacman perfectly fine).

It is just the non-standard file name extension that's irritating (default is e.g. .pkg.tar.xz for an XZ-compressed package file).

sidneys commented 6 years ago

@ayekat @SethGower

Thanks for your feedback!

Does that mean that the generated pacman package does not follow the specification? I never used that, it is generated as part of the cross-platform-build system...

ayekat commented 6 years ago

AFAIK there is no real specification. It's just more of a convention to use .pkg followed by whatever format/compression algorithm was used (e.g. .tar.xz for XZ-compressed tarballs). This is likely because the official Arch Linux packages are all named that way, and the default configuration for makepkg (the tool to build pacman-compatible packages) on Arch Linux is also configured that way.

But again, pacman can handle package files with different extensions perfectly fine. The only "problem" is that it leads to a bit of confusion among users.

sidneys commented 6 years ago

@ayekat

Thanks for the input! As this doesn't impact the usability on either platform and changing this would require reworking the mostly automated build process, we'll mark this as wontfixfor the time being, and add a note for Arch users to the README. I hope thats suffices?

Cheers, S

ayekat commented 6 years ago

To be honest, I don't use this software, so I'm not really concerned about this.

There was a post on reddit where someone complained about this "issue" without actually having taken a look at the (perfectly valid) package file, and they stated that they would report it here, despite the comments that stated that the package is valid. So I just chimed in here to clear things up.

SethGower commented 6 years ago

Sorry I haven't been replying. That post on reddit was me, I ended up just installing from the AUR using a different PKGBUILD that someone provided