Package Details: atom-editor-bin 1.36.0-1

Git Clone URL: (read-only)
Package Base: atom-editor-bin
Description: Hackable text editor built on Electron (official precompiled binary)
Upstream URL:
Keywords: atom editor
Licenses: MIT
Conflicts: apm, atom, atom-editor, atom-editor-git, atom-editor-git-tagged, atom-notracking
Provides: apm, atom
Submitter: butangmucat
Maintainer: grawlinson (forivall, alexheretic, bpremo)
Last Packager: alexheretic
Votes: 320
Popularity: 0.577072
First Submitted: 2014-05-29 04:06
Last Updated: 2019-04-11 19:01

Pinned Comments

grawlinson commented on 2017-09-25 18:18

To whoever submitted a deletion request:

The package in the official repos modifies the package a bit, and as such, bug reports usually will not be accepted upstream.

This package aims to keep things as close to upstream as possible, so that any bug reports originating from Arch users can actually be useful to upstream developers.

EDIT (28/09/17): Thanks to @onestone who has collated a few links explaining why this package bundles Electron, et al. I have attached them to this comment for posterity.

Upstream links:

community/atom bug report:

Latest Comments

1 2 3 4 5 6 ... Next › Last »

Vrakfall commented on 2018-11-10 17:06

@redflames: You just experienced why partial upgrades are unsupported.

redflames commented on 2018-08-18 10:09

Just had a Segfault upon running atom (or /usr/share/atom/atom), but that was resolved by doing a pacman -Syu which updated xdg-utils?... I also reinstalled this here package and now it starts up fine. No idea what was up.

I have this gdb backtrace, if that's any help at all.

Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault. 0x0000000000b87650 in ?? () (gdb) bt

0 0x0000000000b87650 in ()
1 0x00007ffff7d833e2 in node::http2::Http2Session::Callbacks::Callbacks(bool) () at /usr/share/atom/
2 0x00007ffff7d834a5 in () at /usr/share/atom/
3 0x00007ffff7fe36da in call_init.part () at /lib64/
4 0x00007ffff7fe37da in _dl_init () at /lib64/
5 0x00007ffff7fd503a in _dl_start_user () at /lib64/
6 0x0000000000000001 in ()
7 0x00007fffffffeb9b in ()
8 0x0000000000000000 in ()

But as I said; works now. Otherwise I would've switched to the atom package in the official repos.

grawlinson commented on 2018-08-13 22:05

@godlikemouse: Are you able to use strace or a similar tool to figure out what's going on?

This issue isn't occuring for me, on 2 different computers so I'm not quite sure where the issue lies.

Vrakfall commented on 2018-08-13 16:58

@godlikemouse: You're welcome. Tho, please mind the pinned comment before reporting atom issues upstream.

Also, it would also be better to tell us if it works back again if you rebuild this AUR package so the maintainer knows if he should fix something or not.

godlikemouse commented on 2018-08-13 16:51

@Vrakfall: Great that worked, thank you. I uninstalled the atom-editor-bin, and installed the atom package.

Vrakfall commented on 2018-08-13 16:45

@godlikemouse: Maybe a lib used by atom got updated. Did you try to rebuild it? Also, did you see there's now an atom package in the community repo? That version works for me. (Not that I mean you should totally use it, look at the pinned comment. Though, it might work for you.)

godlikemouse commented on 2018-08-13 16:41

I'm getting an error after performing a "pacman -Syu" yesterday. Crash on start-up.

$ /usr/bin/atom: line 141: 17717 Segmentation fault (core dumped) nohup "$ATOM_PATH" --executed-from="$(pwd)" --pid=$$ "$@" > "$ATOM_HOME/nohup.out" 2>&1

Alad commented on 2017-09-27 15:51

Thanks. Perhaps the package should be renamed to "bundled" or similar, to avoid confusion in the future.

onestone commented on 2017-09-27 12:36

@Alad: Here are a couple of examples:

Here is an explanation by an Atom developer why they only support a specific Electron version:

The maintainers of the package in the official repo dismissed the upstream developers' concerns, saying they have made "wrong design decisions": I don't think they can match upstream developers in fixing bug reports though.

Alad commented on 2017-09-27 10:27

@grawlinson: "bug reports usually will not be accepted upstream." Do you have some link to back up that claim?