AUR Firefox Aurora (en_GB)

Question

Hi all,
I'm *really* new, so if I'm asking something that should be self-evident, bear with me.
I finished my first 'bare metal' install of Arch last night, and I'm currently in the process of installing applications and configuring my DE to my liking.
I've used Firefox Aurora for years (finding no difference really in terms of the number of crashes etc compared to stable channel builds, and appreciating the 'sneak peek' at features before everyone else), so I'm keen to continue using it with Arch.
I've found it in the AUR here: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/firefox-aurora
However, I've got some questions...
1) It uses en_US, and I'm resident in the UK (so obviously would appreciate the correct localisation). How would I do this? I ran a search, and found this package: https://www.archlinux.org/packages/extr … 18n-en-gb/ , but it seems kind of 'messy' to just lump that ontop of the US localisation (surely if I did that, the US localisation would linger on, and I'd rather have it completely absent).
Then I've got some more generic questions about the AUR (which may be appropriate for another thread, I'm not sure - suggestions?):
2) What does the firefox-aurora 'thing' (I'm not sure of the right word - package doesn't strike me as the right word since you need to download the source code etc?) in the AUR offer that the download from Mozilla doesn't? As far as I can see thus far, the localisation is present in the Mozilla package, and the binaries too, so would it not be easier just to use that?
3) If I were to use the Mozilla package, is it okay just to download, extract and copy it into /opt (I assume this would be a 'good' place to put it to distinguish it from pacman-installed packages)? I'm relatively confident I can do this, including creating a launcher etc, but want to know if this is 'best practise' before proceeding.
Finally, unrelated to both these (again, another thread might be more appropriate, if so please tell me):
4) Since according to the wiki pages I've read (particularly the one on Stability), it's best not to install too many packages from the AUR, and since in any case, the documentation is there to make it relatively simple, what is the object of an AUR helper (e.g. yaourt)? A 'plain-English' bit of information on this would be interesting to hear, since I've spent a bit of time on the wiki and still like I'm missing the point entirely of just what it's supposed to do that isn't already simple enough.
Since this is my first post, I'd also like to take this opportunity to say 'Hello world!'
Thanks,
AA.

Answer 1

Trilby wrote:
I'll try to tackle these - and reverse order seems best for these:
ArminasAnarchy wrote:4) Since according to the wiki pages I've read (particularly the one on Stability), it's best not to install too many packages from the AUR, and since in any case, the documentation is there to make it relatively simple, what is the object of an AUR helper (e.g. yaourt)? A 'plain-English' bit of information on this would be interesting to hear, since I've spent a bit of time on the wiki and still like I'm missing the point entirely of just what it's supposed to do that isn't already simple enough.
I suspect that may be a poor interpretation of the wiki.  AUR packages are "officially" unsupported - this means they are not supported by the distro devs, but they certainly are supported by the community: they are made, updated, and maintained by the community.  There is, however, a wide range of quality of AUR packages.  Some are very well made and maintained, others are abandonded pieces of crap (flags and votes can help distinguish).  But I would certainly not encourage someone to avoid installing AUR packages.  The AUR is one of arch's great strengths - I currently have 22 aur packages installed.  I would say favor main repo packages when they are available, but when they are not, that is what the AUR is for.
There's not much I can say here other than thanks! I suppose the wiki is designed to err on the side of caution, when in theory things which could cause problems (i.e. dodgy AUR packages) rarely do, since they're avoided?
Trilby wrote:EDIT: addition: AUR helpers should be avoided at first - learn how the aur actually works.  Good AUR helpers then simply help automate a few of the more repetitive bits of the process.  Yaourt sometimes gets a bad rap around here - mostly for undeserved reasons.  But it does have a self-defeating design as it hides much more of the process than many other helpers (more 'behind the curtain): those who don't know how the AUR works definitely should not use yaourt, those who do know how the AUR works generally don't want to use yaourt.  Yaourt is simply too 'idoit-proofed' for it's own good, so that it makes it very easy for people to remain idiotic and do silly things.  Other AUR helpers help automate without removing the control or understanding of the process (I like cower, but there are many other good ones).
Message received and understood. No helpers until I'm a bit more confident!
Trilby wrote:
ArminasAnarchy wrote:3) If I were to use the Mozilla package, is it okay just to download, extract and copy it into /opt (I assume this would be a 'good' place to put it to distinguish it from pacman-installed packages)? I'm relatively confident I can do this, including creating a launcher etc, but want to know if this is 'best practise' before proceeding.
That could be okay, and in "opt" it would be perfectly safe (from a package management standpoint), but it would not be best practise.  Best practise would be to make a PKGBUILD and have it managed by pacman.  PKGBUILDs are much easier than most archers first assume.  If you have a set of commands to download and install a piece of software, you can easily make a PKGBUILD.
I think this really is the 'meat' of the answer. I've skimmed the wiki page on PKGBUILDs, and it seems for installing something relatively simple, in the 'standard' fashion, (i.e. as I would do if it was provided in the official repos and automatically installed by pacman), the page is overly detailed. There's a (perhaps) more useful link at the bottom, with an example (http://ix.io/66p), but again, it seems overly detailed. For instance, I'm happy to ignore options containing things like the licence (but don't know if pacman would be happy with me ignoring that; also, is pacman capable of handling en_GB localisation in the word 'licence', if I did have to include it?). Also, working out what to fill in the 'conflicts' and 'replaces' fields might be awkward. Furthermore, if I was modifying  the AUR package for the right localisation, would I have to recreate a new PKGBUILD every single time the package was updated? Guidance here on making the process as simple and quick as possible (bearing in mind the 'Arch Way' I suppose; I want to use the same programs, but I don't want to simulate my _buntu experiences with a different distro – completely defeating the point of changing over). In short, I suppose I'm saying I'd like to learn once, do once, and thereafter have Aurora updated as painlessly as possible. Do you have any advice to this end?
Trilby wrote:
ArminasAnarchy wrote:2) What does the firefox-aurora 'thing' (I'm not sure of the right word - package doesn't strike me as the right word since you need to download the source code etc?) in the AUR offer that the download from Mozilla doesn't? As far as I can see thus far, the localisation is present in the Mozilla package, and the binaries too, so would it not be easier just to use that?
Package is a bit ambiguous, yes, but I think it is a suitable word.  "AUR package" will disambiguate it.  PKGBUILD might seem more precise, but many AUR packages have more than a PKGBUILD (install file, patches, etc).  In any case, these semantics don't generally matter - context makes it clear.
Without looking at the PKGBUILD I don't know exactly what the differences are - but they can include different compile flags, other options, various patches, etc.
Here is a link to the PKGBUILD: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/fi/f … a/PKGBUILD. I've scanned over it, and to my (inexperienced) eyes, it looks like the package is being pulled from an en_US link, then being shoved into /opt. Since this is sort of what I was edging towards anyway, is it possible to just modify the PKGBUILD once, changing the en_US for en_GB, and letting it go ahead and shove the file in /opt? Or – as asked before – would I have to do this each and every time the package updated? Also, would just changing the link break anything?
Trilby wrote:
ArminasAnarchy wrote:1) It uses en_US, and I'm resident in the UK (so obviously would appreciate the correct localisation). How would I do this? I ran a search, and found this package: https://www.archlinux.org/packages/extr … 18n-en-gb/ , but it seems kind of 'messy' to just lump that ontop of the US localisation (surely if I did that, the US localisation would linger on, and I'd rather have it completely absent).
This I have very little knowledgeable input on as I am spoiled by being in the en_US locale.  But most programs should check the system's default locale and use that without needing a special build for each locale.  Is firefox not doing that for you?  Is your system locale set properly? (check `locale -a` and `localectl` ).
I've not actually downloaded the package yet; the idea being to make sure I knew exactly what I was doing before doing anything, to avoid screw ups whilst I'm learning. Admittedly, Firefox is fairly innocuous, but I think it's a good habit to be in, none-the-less.
In terms of system locale, the terminal works like a charm, and was set up during installation to use the right keymap etc. XFCE thus far wasn't doing that – but I think I've fixed it in the settings by just removing the US keyboard layout and replacing it with the UK one.
In Firefox, would that command actually show anything? Tbh, I'm not even sure what the localisation does – the main difference between US and GB is spelling of words like 'colour', and I'd guess that words like that would occur in the interfaces only occasionally (am I right in thinking keymap is handled by the DE/base system and doesn't need per-program modification?). Unlike a foreign language, where you need the interfaces to make sense in order to use the program, with en_GB, it's more a matter of a persecution complex and resenting having American English being shoved on me . I suppose there is an element of administration here, in so far as I don't want Firefox's incorrect locale being picked up by other programs, but I'm not sure if that would happen anyway, or if I'm worrying over nothing?
karol wrote:There's also the nightly channel, even more "beta" than aurora, in case you're interested.
Yep, I know about this! Isn't the codename minefield or something? I did give nightly builds a try and found that they were (unsurprisingly, perhaps) really unstable – to the point of being barely usable. I'm not a dev, or interested in bug hunting, I just appreciate getting an early look at packages. Aurora lets me do that, and I honestly notice no difference at all in stability compared to regular Firefox (it's been a few years since I used it, but release-channel used to have this dreadful bug where the process wouldn't close when the 'X' was clicked – I've not seen that in Aurora).
karol wrote:1. Give the en_GB localization a go and don't assume it won't work.
I don't think I'm assuming anything – that was the whole point of posting here . I'm just being uber-cautious before doing anything; I'd rather prevent the problem from occurring that having to spend time fixing it.
karol wrote:2. Read the wiki about the AUR, have a look at the PKGBUILD(s) you want to install to see what do they do.
Done and done. See above.
karol wrote:3. You should install packages using pacman, not using 'make install' or just by downloading binaries, but it's your computer, and you can give it a go.
Thanks for re-iterating this, but I think Trilby beat you to the punch Sorry, man.
karol wrote:4. IMHO 'Stability' article in the wiki is for people worried / obsessed with security. AUR helpers make things even simpler, but they're not mandatory and they can be substituted by a short script. Some of these helpers are just that. The helper may let you not only install, but also search the AUR. Some people prefer not to leave the terminal if they can help it and using an AUR helper beats figuring how to use a text browser.
If you want to build package foo from the AUR that happens to depend on bar and baz - also AUR packages - which in turn depend on blah and blaaaah, which - you guessed it - are only in the AUR, telling an AUR helper "Build foo. Oh yes, build all the dependencies and their dependencies too." is easier.
Again, I think most of what you said here has already been hinted at, but thanks anyway . It's useful to have things put in a different format.
To both of you, and to any future posters, thanks! I've come from _buntu(s), and Arch has got an undeserved reputation for being a distro full of scary, angry hackers who are far more likely to tell you to jog on and RTFM than actually provide any useful information (e.g. which part of which manual?). I have to say, for my first post/thread, I'm coming away with a warm fuzzy feeling
(PS – this is the second time I've had to write this out, since the forum automatically logged me out whilst I was typing this up, so that's why it's taken a while – retyping everything I'd just written was something I couldn't face for a few days! Is there a way to disable this, or should I carry on as I'm doing currently (i.e. typing my replies into a text doc, then copying and pasting?)).