On 04/02/2013 02:35 PM, Jelle van der Waa wrote:
On 02/04/13 17:59, Jonathan Arnold wrote:
There are 2 packages for the Copy.com client software package:
copy - https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/copy/
copy-agent - https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/copy-agent/
I think both have PKGBUILD problems, from dependencies (the Copy.com
software uses Qt4, not Gtk, for instance) to poorly formed PKGBUILDs
(one has just a package() method and one has just a build() method).
Only a build() method is deprecated, but only a package() is perfectly fine.
I'm not really sure how this should be resolved, mostly because I
wouldn't pick one over the other right now.
I agree.
Any one with more PKGBUILD confidence want to step in?
Also, if you're interested, sign up with this link and we both get an
extra 5gb(!) of cloud storage on copy.com:
https://copy.com?r=NXWnIn
Imo the 'copy' package is perfectly fine. The other package installs in
/opt which isn't needed.
Actually both packages have good and bad qualities that the other
doesn't; although 'copy-agent' is much better for reasons stated above,
it doesn't have the systemd service file or the license terms file that
'copy' does.
Anyway, I'll submit a PKGBUILD here that incorporates the good of both ASAP.
