[PR PATCH] New package: uutils-0.0.24

[PR PATCH] New package: uutils-0.0.24

[caughtquick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 696 bytes --]

There is a new pull request by caughtquick against master on the void-packages repository

https://github.com/caughtquick/void-packages uutils
https://github.com/void-linux/void-packages/pull/48534

New package: uutils-0.0.24
#### Testing the changes
- I tested the changes in this PR: **briefly**

#### New package
- This new package conforms to the [package requirements](https://github.com/void-linux/void-packages/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#package-requirements): **YES**

#### Local build testing
- I built this PR locally for my native architecture, (x86_64 glibc)

This PR closes #47445 

A patch file from https://github.com/void-linux/void-packages/pull/48534.patch is attached

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #2: github-pr-uutils-48534.patch --]
[-- Type: text/x-diff, Size: 1009 bytes --]

From 9049ec735c84e15fd3087dfd4c045f05e0507342 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: caughtquick <abhijit@sipahimalani.me>
Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2024 21:15:39 -0800
Subject: [PATCH] New package: uutils-0.0.24

---
 srcpkgs/uutils/template | 13 +++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 srcpkgs/uutils/template

diff --git a/srcpkgs/uutils/template b/srcpkgs/uutils/template
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000..b0d5258a395ac
--- /dev/null
+++ b/srcpkgs/uutils/template
@@ -0,0 +1,13 @@
+# Template file for 'uutils'
+pkgname=uutils
+version=0.0.24
+revision=1
+build_style=cargo
+hostmakedepends="pkg-config"
+makedepends="oniguruma-devel"
+short_desc="Cross-platform Rust rewrite of the GNU coreutils"
+maintainer="caughtquick <abhijit@sipahimalani.me>"
+license="GPL-3.0-or-later"
+homepage="https://github.com/uutils/coreutils"
+distfiles="https://github.com/uutils/coreutils/archive/refs/tags/${version}.tar.gz"
+checksum=57c9083695e35712ddafc3cd8c579481ba5976107f357a6b5f1b1d813181dc36

Re: New package: uutils-0.0.24

[caughtquick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 219 bytes --]

New comment by caughtquick on void-packages repository

https://github.com/void-linux/void-packages/pull/48534#issuecomment-1926262045

Comment:
This built fine on my x86_64 glibc PC, not sure why it's not building now

Re: New package: uutils-0.0.24

[oreo639]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 433 bytes --]

New comment by oreo639 on void-packages repository

https://github.com/void-linux/void-packages/pull/48534#issuecomment-1926267511

Comment:
Those are test failures. Run them locally and see if they succeed.
Sometimes test failures are because of bugs in the application other times, test failures are because some functions aren't supported when run in the container. (some tests may rely on having a desktop running, for example)

Re: New package: uutils-0.0.24

[oreo639]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 519 bytes --]

New comment by oreo639 on void-packages repository

https://github.com/void-linux/void-packages/pull/48534#issuecomment-1926267511

Comment:
Those are test failures. Run them locally and see if they succeed.
Sometimes test failures are because of bugs in the application other times, test failures are because some functions aren't supported when run in the container. Some tests rely on other software running before the tests are started, for example, some packages have tests that rely on having a desktop running)

Re: New package: uutils-0.0.24

[oreo639]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 588 bytes --]

New comment by oreo639 on void-packages repository

https://github.com/void-linux/void-packages/pull/48534#issuecomment-1926267511

Comment:
Those are test failures. Run them locally and see if they succeed.
Sometimes test failures are because of bugs in the application other times, test failures are because some functions aren't supported when run in the container. Some tests rely on other software running before the tests are started, for example, some packages have tests that rely on having a desktop running)

The way to resolve the test failure depends on why it is failing.

Re: New package: uutils-0.0.24

[oreo639]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 588 bytes --]

New comment by oreo639 on void-packages repository

https://github.com/void-linux/void-packages/pull/48534#issuecomment-1926267511

Comment:
Those are test failures. Run them locally and see if they succeed.
Sometimes test failures are because of bugs in the application other times, test failures are because some functions aren't supported when run in the container. Some tests rely on other software running before the tests are started, for example, some packages have tests that rely on having a desktop running.

The way to resolve the test failure depends on why it is failing.

Re: New package: uutils-0.0.24

[caughtquick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 269 bytes --]

New comment by caughtquick on void-packages repository

https://github.com/void-linux/void-packages/pull/48534#issuecomment-1926276656

Comment:
In regards to x86_64-glibc, the package built fine, should I be checking x86_64-musl and i686-glibc locally (crossbuilds?).

Re: New package: uutils-0.0.24

[caughtquick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 269 bytes --]

New comment by caughtquick on void-packages repository

https://github.com/void-linux/void-packages/pull/48534#issuecomment-1926276656

Comment:
In regards to x86_64-glibc, the package built fine, should I be checking x86_64-musl and i686-glibc locally (crossbuilds?)?

Re: New package: uutils-0.0.24

[oreo639]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1036 bytes --]

New comment by oreo639 on void-packages repository

https://github.com/void-linux/void-packages/pull/48534#issuecomment-1926284059

Comment:
> In regards to x86_64-glibc, the package built fine

You need to do `./xbps-src pkg -Q uutils` or `./xbps-src check uutils` in order to run the tests.

Testing locally, the following tests do fail:
```
    test_df::test_file_column_width_if_filename_contains_unicode_chars
    test_df::test_nonexistent_file
    test_df::test_output_file_specific_files
    test_df::test_output_mp_repeat
    test_df::test_output_option_without_equals_sign
    test_df::test_total_label_in_correct_column
    test_df::test_type_option_with_file
    test_test::test_file_not_owned_by_egid
    test_test::test_file_not_owned_by_euid
    test_touch::test_touch_system_fails
```

> should I be checking x86_64-musl and i686-glibc locally (crossbuilds?)?

Those are not cross builds, they are native builds. (`-a i686` is cross and `-A i686` is native)
You can't run tests when cross compiling.

Re: New package: uutils-0.0.24

[oreo639]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1167 bytes --]

New comment by oreo639 on void-packages repository

https://github.com/void-linux/void-packages/pull/48534#issuecomment-1926284059

Comment:
> In regards to x86_64-glibc, the package built fine

You need to do `./xbps-src pkg -Q uutils` or `./xbps-src check uutils` in order to run the tests.

Testing locally, the following tests do fail:
```
    test_df::test_file_column_width_if_filename_contains_unicode_chars
    test_df::test_nonexistent_file
    test_df::test_output_file_specific_files
    test_df::test_output_mp_repeat
    test_df::test_output_option_without_equals_sign
    test_df::test_total_label_in_correct_column
    test_df::test_type_option_with_file
    test_test::test_file_not_owned_by_egid
    test_test::test_file_not_owned_by_euid
    test_touch::test_touch_system_fails
```

Most of the failures locally are related to `df` returning that not filesystems are mounted (which is expected for the chroot).

> should I be checking x86_64-musl and i686-glibc locally (crossbuilds?)?

Those are not cross builds, they are native builds. (`-a i686` is cross and `-A i686` is native)
You can't run tests when cross compiling.

Re: New package: uutils-0.0.24

[oreo639]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1166 bytes --]

New comment by oreo639 on void-packages repository

https://github.com/void-linux/void-packages/pull/48534#issuecomment-1926284059

Comment:
> In regards to x86_64-glibc, the package built fine

You need to do `./xbps-src pkg -Q uutils` or `./xbps-src check uutils` in order to run the tests.

Testing locally, the following tests do fail:
```
    test_df::test_file_column_width_if_filename_contains_unicode_chars
    test_df::test_nonexistent_file
    test_df::test_output_file_specific_files
    test_df::test_output_mp_repeat
    test_df::test_output_option_without_equals_sign
    test_df::test_total_label_in_correct_column
    test_df::test_type_option_with_file
    test_test::test_file_not_owned_by_egid
    test_test::test_file_not_owned_by_euid
    test_touch::test_touch_system_fails
```

Most of the failures locally are related to `df` returning that no filesystems are mounted (which is expected for the chroot).

> should I be checking x86_64-musl and i686-glibc locally (crossbuilds?)?

Those are not cross builds, they are native builds. (`-a i686` is cross and `-A i686` is native)
You can't run tests when cross compiling.

Re: New package: uutils-0.0.24

[oreo639]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1313 bytes --]

New comment by oreo639 on void-packages repository

https://github.com/void-linux/void-packages/pull/48534#issuecomment-1926284059

Comment:
> In regards to x86_64-glibc, the package built fine

You need to do `./xbps-src pkg -Q uutils` or `./xbps-src check uutils` in order to run the tests.

Testing locally, the following tests do fail:
```
    test_df::test_file_column_width_if_filename_contains_unicode_chars
    test_df::test_nonexistent_file
    test_df::test_output_file_specific_files
    test_df::test_output_mp_repeat
    test_df::test_output_option_without_equals_sign
    test_df::test_total_label_in_correct_column
    test_df::test_type_option_with_file
    test_test::test_file_not_owned_by_egid
    test_test::test_file_not_owned_by_euid
    test_touch::test_touch_system_fails
```

The df test failures are related to `df` returning that no filesystems are mounted (which is expected for the chroot).
The other tests don't output any stderr but them not working correctly does seem expected for the chroot.
You could probably just patch out these tests.

> should I be checking x86_64-musl and i686-glibc locally (crossbuilds?)?

Those are not cross builds, they are native builds. (`-a i686` is cross and `-A i686` is native)
You can't run tests when cross compiling.

Re: New package: uutils-0.0.24

[oreo639]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1311 bytes --]

New comment by oreo639 on void-packages repository

https://github.com/void-linux/void-packages/pull/48534#issuecomment-1926284059

Comment:
> In regards to x86_64-glibc, the package built fine

You need to do `./xbps-src pkg -Q uutils` or `./xbps-src check uutils` in order to run the tests.

Testing locally, the following tests do fail:
```
    test_df::test_file_column_width_if_filename_contains_unicode_chars
    test_df::test_nonexistent_file
    test_df::test_output_file_specific_files
    test_df::test_output_mp_repeat
    test_df::test_output_option_without_equals_sign
    test_df::test_total_label_in_correct_column
    test_df::test_type_option_with_file
    test_test::test_file_not_owned_by_egid
    test_test::test_file_not_owned_by_euid
    test_touch::test_touch_system_fails
```

The df test failures are related to `df` returning that no filesystems are mounted (which is expected for the chroot).
The other tests don't output any stderr but them not working correctly does seem expected for the chroot.
You can probably just patch out these tests.

> should I be checking x86_64-musl and i686-glibc locally (crossbuilds?)?

Those are not cross builds, they are native builds. (`-a i686` is cross and `-A i686` is native)
You can't run tests when cross compiling.

Re: New package: uutils-0.0.24

[oreo639]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 519 bytes --]

New comment by oreo639 on void-packages repository

https://github.com/void-linux/void-packages/pull/48534#issuecomment-1926284059

Comment:
> In regards to x86_64-glibc, the package built fine

You need to do `./xbps-src pkg -Q uutils` or `./xbps-src check uutils` in order to run the tests.



> should I be checking x86_64-musl and i686-glibc locally (crossbuilds?)?

Those are not cross builds, they are native builds. (`-a i686` is cross and `-A i686` is native)
You can't run tests when cross compiling.

Re: New package: uutils-0.0.24

[oreo639]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 649 bytes --]

New comment by oreo639 on void-packages repository

https://github.com/void-linux/void-packages/pull/48534#issuecomment-1926284059

Comment:
> In regards to x86_64-glibc, the package built fine

You need to do `./xbps-src pkg -Q uutils` or `./xbps-src check uutils` in order to run the tests.

The test failures do appear to be related to the chroot type and running locally gives completely different test failures from CI.

> should I be checking x86_64-musl and i686-glibc locally (crossbuilds?)?

Those are not cross builds, they are native builds. (`-a i686` is cross and `-A i686` is native)
You can't run tests when cross compiling.

Re: New package: uutils-0.0.24

[oreo639]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 726 bytes --]

New comment by oreo639 on void-packages repository

https://github.com/void-linux/void-packages/pull/48534#issuecomment-1926284059

Comment:
> In regards to x86_64-glibc, the package built fine

You need to do `./xbps-src pkg -Q uutils` or `./xbps-src check uutils` in order to run the tests.

The test failures do appear to be related to the chroot type and running locally (defaults to uunshare) does give completely different results to CI (defaults to ethereal).

It may require `make_check=no`.

> should I be checking x86_64-musl and i686-glibc locally (crossbuilds?)?

Those are not cross builds, they are native builds. (`-a i686` is cross and `-A i686` is native)
You can't run tests when cross compiling.

Re: New package: uutils-0.0.24

[oreo639]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 727 bytes --]

New comment by oreo639 on void-packages repository

https://github.com/void-linux/void-packages/pull/48534#issuecomment-1926284059

Comment:
> In regards to x86_64-glibc, the package built fine

You need to do `./xbps-src pkg -Q uutils` or `./xbps-src check uutils` in order to run the tests.

The test failures do appear to be related to the chroot type and running locally (defaults to uunshare) does give completely different failures to CI (defaults to ethereal).

It may require `make_check=no`.

> should I be checking x86_64-musl and i686-glibc locally (crossbuilds?)?

Those are not cross builds, they are native builds. (`-a i686` is cross and `-A i686` is native)
You can't run tests when cross compiling.

Re: New package: uutils-0.0.24

[oreo639]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 720 bytes --]

New comment by oreo639 on void-packages repository

https://github.com/void-linux/void-packages/pull/48534#issuecomment-1926284059

Comment:
> In regards to x86_64-glibc, the package built fine

You need to do `./xbps-src pkg -Q uutils` or `./xbps-src check uutils` in order to run the tests.

The test failures do appear to be related to the chroot type and running locally (defaults to uunshare) does give completely different failures to CI (uses ethereal).

It may require `make_check=no`.

> should I be checking x86_64-musl and i686-glibc locally (crossbuilds?)?

Those are not cross builds, they are native builds. (`-a i686` is cross and `-A i686` is native)
You can't run tests when cross compiling.

Re: New package: uutils-0.0.24

[ahesford]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1110 bytes --]

New comment by ahesford on void-packages repository

https://github.com/void-linux/void-packages/pull/48534#issuecomment-1926785723

Comment:
This package is misnamed. Normally it should be `coreutils`, which obviously conflicts, so maybe `uutils-coreutils` is a better choice.

I find the documentation very opaque, either because it's missing critical information or because I'm looking for critical information on a phone. The documentation I did find says that "uutils includes a multi-call binary from which the utils can be invoked", but does not say that uutils *is comprised of* a multi-call binary. This makes it sound like the multi-call binary is an optional component of a package that also provides individual commands.

Please confirm that the single executable installed by this package *is* the multi-call executable and can (should) be run similarly to busybox. In particular, I want to ensure that running `/usr/bin/coreutils` won't "helpfully" do something destructive like unpack a bunch of commands or make a bunch of symlinks that would interfere with the system `coreutils` package.

Re: New package: uutils-0.0.24

[caughtquick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 436 bytes --]

New comment by caughtquick on void-packages repository

https://github.com/void-linux/void-packages/pull/48534#issuecomment-1927386516

Comment:
Running 'coreutils' does not do anything destructive, it just prompts you to run the command you want, for example 'coreutils ls' or 'coreutils bat'. It does not appear to conflict with the GNU coreutils installed by default on the system. In regards to the name change, I'll make that now.

Re: New package: uutils-0.0.24

[github-actions]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 305 bytes --]

New comment by github-actions[bot] on void-packages repository

https://github.com/void-linux/void-packages/pull/48534#issuecomment-2095065009

Comment:
Pull Requests become stale 90 days after last activity and are closed 14 days after that.  If this pull request is still relevant bump it or assign it.