Re: [arch-dev-public] Migration to systemd
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Tom Gundersen wrote: > On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 5:56 PM, Thomas Bächler wrote: >> My plan: >> >> 1) Tell people to migrate to systemd. >> 2) Make new installations use systemd by default. >> 3) Stop holding back packages because of systemd. For example: polkit >> requires either consolekit or systemd. Drop ck support, use systemd. >> This means that most desktop users will need to switch to systemd - but >> a server that doesn't even have dbus will (for the time being) keep >> working with initscripts. >> 4) Drop initscripts as soon as udev starts breaking without systemd. >> >> I guess it will take lots of time before we do 4). > > I agree wholeheartedly (assuming all the needed things such as unit > files are in place before we do (1), as discussed earlier in the > thread). I suppose what will trigger initscripts being dropped is > people getting sick of maintaining rc scripts for our packages, which > will probably happen long before udev stops working (but even that > should be a long time into the future). That also looks like agood plan to me. I suppose that developpement of initscripts will stop, i.e. no more new features or bug fixes. That should gently push users to systemd and it might become the reason to remove it from the repo (step 4). > >> As Tom stated (and he maintains systemd and initscripts), this is not >> true. This angers me because >> >> 1) Something untrue and/or unprecise is being posted on the "official" G+. > > That is indeed imprecise, but I'll admit that I didn't notice myself... > >> 2) There are claims that this G+ is official. Neither our website, nor >> any place else states that there is an official Arch G+ (or Facebook) >> page and links to it. This G+ has not been approved by developers to be >> "official". Yet, someone here claims to be the official G+. >> >> This must stop. If we present ourselves on social media, I want it to be >> approved on the private mailing list first. And if someone starts that >> discussion, it will get a big -1 from me. > > Yeah, we should probably discuss that (though I'm personally overall > happy with the G+ page). > > -t
[arch-dev-public] [RFC] dropping cpufrequtils
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 4:42 AM, Jan Steffens wrote: > > cpupower currently has no hook for pm-utils. I attached the one I'm using. Sébastien: Could you have a look at the attached file? > gnome-applets are deprecated anyway (they don't work with > gnome-shell). We can just kick out the cpufreq-applet. Ok. I'll drop cupfrequtils from the repos, so gnome-applets will have to drop cpufrq-applet on the next rebuild. Do you want to push a new version of gnome-applets before I drop the package? -t cpupower Description: Binary data
Re: [arch-dev-public] [signoff] linux-3.4.9-1
Le 2012-08-15 14:44, Tobias Powalowski a écrit : Hi guys, please signoff 3.4.9 series for both arches. package is not in testing, please grab it from here: http://dev.archlinux.org/~tpowa/linux/ This will move to [core] directly, because 3.5.2 is in [testing]. greetings tpowa Signoff x86_64 Stéphane
[arch-dev-public] [signoff] linux-3.4.9-1
Hi guys, please signoff 3.4.9 series for both arches. package is not in testing, please grab it from here: http://dev.archlinux.org/~tpowa/linux/ This will move to [core] directly, because 3.5.2 is in [testing]. greetings tpowa -- Tobias Powalowski Archlinux Developer & Package Maintainer (tpowa) http://www.archlinux.org tp...@archlinux.org signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [arch-dev-public] Migration to systemd
On Wednesday 15 August 2012 19:36:55 Pierre Schmitz wrote: > Yes, I see the same problem here. Due to this it's announced all over > the media that we replace initscripts by systemd before it's even > discussed on this list. No idea who created this, and I don't mind if > there are "fanpages" on some social networks, but we should ask to > remove the "official" from the title here as it is misleading and just > not true. Sorry, but what are you saying isn't true. None talked about the systemd replacement in the google+ page until that post was written and, since it links to the arch-dev-public thread, it has been written after the discussion. Just to dot your I's and cross your T's'. -- Andrea
Re: [arch-dev-public] Migration to systemd
On Wednesday 15 August 2012 17:56:00 Thomas Bächler wrote: > Another point: Someone on the so-called "official" G+ stated: > > "Arch will move to systemd only boot process..." > > As Tom stated (and he maintains systemd and initscripts), this is not > true. This angers me because > > 1) Something untrue and/or unprecise is being posted on the "official" G+. > 2) There are claims that this G+ is official. Neither our website, nor > any place else states that there is an official Arch G+ (or Facebook) > page and links to it. This G+ has not been approved by developers to be > "official". Yet, someone here claims to be the official G+. > > This must stop. If we present ourselves on social media, I want it to be > approved on the private mailing list first. And if someone starts that > discussion, it will get a big -1 from me. Well, I created that page on January and since then _we_ (managers' page: me, Ionut, Ray, s, Daniel) never write something which wasn't announced by our website. Until today. I don't know who write that (neither I wanna know), but you pointed out something true, so I already removed the "official" suffix from our page and "fixed" the post about systemd. I hope this is ok now. -- Andrea
Re: [arch-dev-public] Migration to systemd
Am 15.08.2012 17:56, schrieb Thomas Bächler: > Another point: Someone on the so-called "official" G+ stated: > > "Arch will move to systemd only boot process..." > > As Tom stated (and he maintains systemd and initscripts), this is not > true. This angers me because > > 1) Something untrue and/or unprecise is being posted on the "official" G+. > 2) There are claims that this G+ is official. Neither our website, nor > any place else states that there is an official Arch G+ (or Facebook) > page and links to it. This G+ has not been approved by developers to be > "official". Yet, someone here claims to be the official G+. > > This must stop. If we present ourselves on social media, I want it to be > approved on the private mailing list first. And if someone starts that > discussion, it will get a big -1 from me. Yes, I see the same problem here. Due to this it's announced all over the media that we replace initscripts by systemd before it's even discussed on this list. No idea who created this, and I don't mind if there are "fanpages" on some social networks, but we should ask to remove the "official" from the title here as it is misleading and just not true. Greetings, Pierre -- Pierre Schmitz, https://pierre-schmitz.com
Re: [arch-dev-public] Migration to systemd
Le 2012-08-14 10:57, Stéphane Gaudreault a écrit : Systemd has a overall better design than SysV, lots of useful administrative features and provide quicker boot up. Considering that it has been around in our repositories for some time and that it could be considered stable enough for production use, I would suggest to replace iniscript by systemd once the 'Missing systemd units' is over. Thus we will avoid duplicating our efforts on two init systems. Any objections to start the migration process ? Cheers, Stéphane I started a draft unordered TODO list on a wiki page. Contributions are welcome. https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/DeveloperWiki:Systemd Cheers, Stéphane
Re: [arch-dev-public] Migration to systemd
Le 2012-08-15 12:46, Thomas Bächler a écrit : Am 15.08.2012 18:41, schrieb Stéphane Gaudreault: (4) There is no rush to do that, but users need to know that it _will_ happen. That is still questionable: Assuming that udev keeps working, a server system that has no polkit (or not even dbus) installed may keep working just fine. It's just the "modern" fd.o things and desktops that start relying on systemd. Your are right. As Tom mentionned the decision to drop the support on initscript will probably based more on the priority of work.
Re: [arch-dev-public] Migration to systemd
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 6:41 PM, Stéphane Gaudreault wrote: > (1) and (2) could be done after the missing unit files rebuild is over. They > should probably be announced at the same time as I expect that some users > will prefer a fresh install instead of "upgrading". > (3) Maybe this could be done in preparation of the gnome 3.6.0 release > scheduled at the end of September. That would be nice, if we are ready by then. Let's see what sorts of problems crop up and how fast we are at adding service files. > (4) There is no rush to do that, but users need to know that it _will_ > happen. I think the important point is that (3) will happen. I.e., that "fancy" stuff will certainly stop working without systemd at some point (soon). The eventual fate of initscripts we could get back to (no promises made in either direction). Though, we should make it very clear that people _should_ prepare for its eventual demise. By that I mean, have a look at systemd at some point, and if it does not work for you, report a bug so it can be fixed in good time before initscripts is dropped. -t
Re: [arch-dev-public] Migration to systemd
Am 15.08.2012 18:41, schrieb Stéphane Gaudreault: > (4) There is no rush to do that, but users need to know that it _will_ > happen. That is still questionable: Assuming that udev keeps working, a server system that has no polkit (or not even dbus) installed may keep working just fine. It's just the "modern" fd.o things and desktops that start relying on systemd. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [arch-dev-public] Migration to systemd
Le 2012-08-15 12:11, Tom Gundersen a écrit : On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 5:56 PM, Thomas Bächler wrote: My plan: 1) Tell people to migrate to systemd. 2) Make new installations use systemd by default. 3) Stop holding back packages because of systemd. For example: polkit requires either consolekit or systemd. Drop ck support, use systemd. This means that most desktop users will need to switch to systemd - but a server that doesn't even have dbus will (for the time being) keep working with initscripts. 4) Drop initscripts as soon as udev starts breaking without systemd. I guess it will take lots of time before we do 4). I agree wholeheartedly (assuming all the needed things such as unit files are in place before we do (1), as discussed earlier in the thread). I suppose what will trigger initscripts being dropped is people getting sick of maintaining rc scripts for our packages, which will probably happen long before udev stops working (but even that should be a long time into the future). I agree with the proposed plan. The schedule could looks like this (1) and (2) could be done after the missing unit files rebuild is over. They should probably be announced at the same time as I expect that some users will prefer a fresh install instead of "upgrading". (3) Maybe this could be done in preparation of the gnome 3.6.0 release scheduled at the end of September. (4) There is no rush to do that, but users need to know that it _will_ happen.
Re: [arch-dev-public] Migration to systemd
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 5:56 PM, Thomas Bächler wrote: > My plan: > > 1) Tell people to migrate to systemd. > 2) Make new installations use systemd by default. > 3) Stop holding back packages because of systemd. For example: polkit > requires either consolekit or systemd. Drop ck support, use systemd. > This means that most desktop users will need to switch to systemd - but > a server that doesn't even have dbus will (for the time being) keep > working with initscripts. > 4) Drop initscripts as soon as udev starts breaking without systemd. > > I guess it will take lots of time before we do 4). I agree wholeheartedly (assuming all the needed things such as unit files are in place before we do (1), as discussed earlier in the thread). I suppose what will trigger initscripts being dropped is people getting sick of maintaining rc scripts for our packages, which will probably happen long before udev stops working (but even that should be a long time into the future). > As Tom stated (and he maintains systemd and initscripts), this is not > true. This angers me because > > 1) Something untrue and/or unprecise is being posted on the "official" G+. That is indeed imprecise, but I'll admit that I didn't notice myself... > 2) There are claims that this G+ is official. Neither our website, nor > any place else states that there is an official Arch G+ (or Facebook) > page and links to it. This G+ has not been approved by developers to be > "official". Yet, someone here claims to be the official G+. > > This must stop. If we present ourselves on social media, I want it to be > approved on the private mailing list first. And if someone starts that > discussion, it will get a big -1 from me. Yeah, we should probably discuss that (though I'm personally overall happy with the G+ page). -t
Re: [arch-dev-public] Migration to systemd
Am 14.08.2012 17:15, schrieb Tom Gundersen: > On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 4:57 PM, Stéphane Gaudreault > wrote: >> Systemd has a overall better design than SysV, lots of useful administrative >> features and provide quicker boot up. Considering that it has been around in >> our repositories for some time and that it could be considered stable enough >> for production use, I would suggest to replace iniscript by systemd once the >> 'Missing systemd units' is over. Thus we will avoid duplicating our efforts >> on two init systems. >> >> Any objections to start the migration process ? > > A big +1 from me. > > As to the future of initscripts: I am (as I keep saying) committed to > maintaining it as long as it is part of our repos (at some point I > expect it will not be any more). We'll make sure that the transition > to systemd is such that initscripts can still be installed for the > time being if that is desired. However, I expect that third-party > packages (gnome, NetworkManager, polkit, etc.) at some point will stop > working well without systemd, so that is something to consider if you > stick with initscripts. I also prefer taking the slow route here. As someone who is yet to migrate to systemd, I don't know what kind of quirks it still has. My plan: 1) Tell people to migrate to systemd. 2) Make new installations use systemd by default. 3) Stop holding back packages because of systemd. For example: polkit requires either consolekit or systemd. Drop ck support, use systemd. This means that most desktop users will need to switch to systemd - but a server that doesn't even have dbus will (for the time being) keep working with initscripts. 4) Drop initscripts as soon as udev starts breaking without systemd. I guess it will take lots of time before we do 4). Another point: Someone on the so-called "official" G+ stated: "Arch will move to systemd only boot process..." As Tom stated (and he maintains systemd and initscripts), this is not true. This angers me because 1) Something untrue and/or unprecise is being posted on the "official" G+. 2) There are claims that this G+ is official. Neither our website, nor any place else states that there is an official Arch G+ (or Facebook) page and links to it. This G+ has not been approved by developers to be "official". Yet, someone here claims to be the official G+. This must stop. If we present ourselves on social media, I want it to be approved on the private mailing list first. And if someone starts that discussion, it will get a big -1 from me. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [arch-dev-public] [RFC] Getting TUs write access to arch-dev-public?
Le 2012-08-15 10:09, Florian Pritz a écrit : Hi, Given the fact that arch-general's mail volume has grown massively in the last few days and some devs already unsubscribed, I thought about getting TUs write access to this list so we can keep all (semi) development related mails on a lower traffic list. I'm more or less only subscribed to aur-general to receive mails about dropping packages from community or TUs going inactive. Since community is not a part of the AUR any more I think those mails don't really belong there. I'd also suggest moving the community-testing signoff report from aur-general to arch-dev-public when doing this. Comments welcome. TUsmust follow arch-dev-public to be aware of the changes in the base system, so it make a lot ofsense that they take part in these discussions too. Cheers, Stéphane
Re: [arch-dev-public] [RFC] Getting TUs write access to arch-dev-public?
On Wednesday 15 August 2012 16:11:57 Tom Gundersen wrote: > Makes a lot of sense to me +1. Same for me. +1 -- Andrea
Re: [arch-dev-public] [RFC] Getting TUs write access to arch-dev-public?
On Aug 15, 2012 4:09 PM, "Florian Pritz" wrote: > > Hi, > > Given the fact that arch-general's mail volume has grown massively in > the last few days and some devs already unsubscribed, I thought about > getting TUs write access to this list so we can keep all (semi) > development related mails on a lower traffic list. > > I'm more or less only subscribed to aur-general to receive mails about > dropping packages from community or TUs going inactive. Since community > is not a part of the AUR any more I think those mails don't really > belong there. > > I'd also suggest moving the community-testing signoff report from > aur-general to arch-dev-public when doing this. > > Comments welcome. Makes a lot of sense to me +1. Tom
[arch-dev-public] [RFC] Getting TUs write access to arch-dev-public?
Hi, Given the fact that arch-general's mail volume has grown massively in the last few days and some devs already unsubscribed, I thought about getting TUs write access to this list so we can keep all (semi) development related mails on a lower traffic list. I'm more or less only subscribed to aur-general to receive mails about dropping packages from community or TUs going inactive. Since community is not a part of the AUR any more I think those mails don't really belong there. I'd also suggest moving the community-testing signoff report from aur-general to arch-dev-public when doing this. Comments welcome. -- Florian Pritz signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [arch-dev-public] Migration to systemd
On 08/14/2012 05:57 PM, Stéphane Gaudreault wrote: > Systemd has a overall better design than SysV, lots of useful > administrative features and provide quicker boot up. Considering that it > has been around in our repositories for some time and that it could be > considered stable enough for production use, I would suggest to replace > iniscript by systemd once the 'Missing systemd units' is over. Thus we > will avoid duplicating our efforts on two init systems. > > Any objections to start the migration process ? > > Cheers, > > Stéphane > > I wonder if we manage to do the switch before gnome 3.6 comes out. I'm sick and tired of supporting ck and seats and become harder to do so. I plan to drop consolekit support from gnome and compile it with systemd full support. -- Ionuț signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [arch-dev-public] Migration to systemd
On 15 August 2012 07:32, Eric Bélanger wrote: > On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 10:57 AM, Stéphane Gaudreault > wrote: >> Systemd has a overall better design than SysV, lots of useful administrative >> features and provide quicker boot up. Considering that it has been around in >> our repositories for some time and that it could be considered stable enough >> for production use, I would suggest to replace iniscript by systemd once the >> 'Missing systemd units' is over. Thus we will avoid duplicating our efforts >> on two init systems. >> >> Any objections to start the migration process ? >> >> Cheers, >> >> Stéphane >> >> > > +1. > > I don't use systemd or know how it works or compare to initscripts but > I am aware that we'll need to switch to it eventually as more and more > projects will depends on it. So the sooner the better. > > Eric Exactly the same position, +1. -- GPG/PGP ID: C0711BF1
Re: [arch-dev-public] Fwd: ScummVM in [extra]
On 15 August 2012 15:42, Jürgen Hötzel wrote: > Any options about moving this to AUR. I dont use ScummVM. > > Jürgen > > -- Forwarded message -- > From: Joe Davison > Date: 2012/8/4 > Subject: ScummVM in [extra] > To: juer...@archlinux.org > > > Hi there, > > ScummVM in [extra] has taken a while to update, so I went ahead and did it. > It's attached for you. I've moved fluidsynth to optdepends and added > timidity along with it; they're not required for build and can be run in > daemon mode to provide MIDI support if the user wishes. > > This is the second time I've provided a PKGBUILD to whoever's maintaining > scummvm at whatever time. It's obviously a very low priority package so > maybe it might be worth thinking about moving it to the AUR. It took > several months to get it to 1.4.0 (the last version I submitted a PKGBUILD > for). I'd be happy to take over maintenance of it if was in the AUR. > > - Joe If nobody else is interested I'll take it. Even if you realise that you're interested just adopt it and I'll disown later. -- GPG/PGP ID: C0711BF1
[arch-dev-public] Signoff report for [testing]
=== Signoff report for [testing] === https://www.archlinux.org/packages/signoffs/ There are currently: * 36 new packages in last 24 hours * 0 known bad packages * 0 packages not accepting signoffs * 8 fully signed off packages * 50 packages missing signoffs * 4 packages older than 14 days (Note: the word 'package' as used here refers to packages as grouped by pkgbase, architecture, and repository; e.g., one PKGBUILD produces one package per architecture, even if it is a split package.) == New packages in [testing] in last 24 hours (36 total) == * automake-1.12.3-1 (any) * man-pages-3.42-1 (any) * binutils-2.22-10 (i686) * gcc-4.7.1-6 (i686) * glibc-2.16.0-3 (i686) * iproute2-3.5.1-1 (i686) * libmpc-1.0-1 (i686) * linux-api-headers-3.5.1-1 (i686) * rfkill-0.4-5 (i686) * sudo-1.8.5.p3-1 (i686) * binutils-2.22-10 (x86_64) * gcc-4.7.1-6 (x86_64) * glibc-2.16.0-3 (x86_64) * iproute2-3.5.1-1 (x86_64) * libmpc-1.0-1 (x86_64) * linux-api-headers-3.5.1-1 (x86_64) * rfkill-0.4-5 (x86_64) * sudo-1.8.5.p3-1 (x86_64) * calligra-2.5.0-1 (i686) * cups-filters-1.0.20-2 (i686) * inkscape-0.48.3.1-5 (i686) * libreoffice-3.5.5-2 (i686) * mysql-5.5.27-2 (i686) * nvidia-304.37-2 (i686) * poppler-0.20.3-1 (i686) * proftpd-1:1.3.4b-2 (i686) * texlive-bin-2012.0-4 (i686) * calligra-2.5.0-1 (x86_64) * cups-filters-1.0.20-2 (x86_64) * inkscape-0.48.3.1-5 (x86_64) * libreoffice-3.5.5-2 (x86_64) * mysql-5.5.27-2 (x86_64) * nvidia-304.37-2 (x86_64) * poppler-0.20.3-1 (x86_64) * proftpd-1:1.3.4b-2 (x86_64) * texlive-bin-2012.0-4 (x86_64) == Incomplete signoffs for [core] (14 total) == * automake-1.12.3-1 (any) 0/2 signoffs * man-pages-3.42-1 (any) 1/2 signoffs * binutils-2.22-10 (i686) 1/2 signoffs * gcc-4.7.1-6 (i686) 1/2 signoffs * glibc-2.16.0-3 (i686) 1/2 signoffs * iproute2-3.5.1-1 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * libmpc-1.0-1 (i686) 1/2 signoffs * linux-api-headers-3.5.1-1 (i686) 1/2 signoffs * rfkill-0.4-5 (i686) 1/2 signoffs * sudo-1.8.5.p3-1 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * iproute2-3.5.1-1 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * libmpc-1.0-1 (x86_64) 1/2 signoffs * rfkill-0.4-5 (x86_64) 1/2 signoffs * sudo-1.8.5.p3-1 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs == Incomplete signoffs for [extra] (36 total) == * calligra-2.5.0-1 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * cups-filters-1.0.20-2 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * ethtool-1:3.5-1 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * inkscape-0.48.3.1-5 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * kdeplasma-applets-networkmanagement-1:0.9.0.4-1 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * libreoffice-3.5.5-2 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * lirc-1:0.9.0-25 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * mysql-5.5.27-2 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * network-manager-applet-0.9.6.2-1 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * networkmanager-0.9.6.0-1 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * networkmanager-openconnect-0.9.6.2-1 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * networkmanager-openvpn-0.9.6.0-1 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * networkmanager-pptp-0.9.6.0-1 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * networkmanager-vpnc-0.9.6.0-1 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * nvidia-304.37-2 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * openconnect-1:4.06-1 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * poppler-0.20.3-1 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * proftpd-1:1.3.4b-2 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * texlive-bin-2012.0-4 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * calligra-2.5.0-1 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * cups-filters-1.0.20-2 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * ethtool-1:3.5-1 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * inkscape-0.48.3.1-5 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * libreoffice-3.5.5-2 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * lirc-1:0.9.0-25 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * mysql-5.5.27-2 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * network-manager-applet-0.9.6.2-1 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * networkmanager-openconnect-0.9.6.2-1 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * networkmanager-openvpn-0.9.6.0-1 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * networkmanager-pptp-0.9.6.0-1 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * networkmanager-vpnc-0.9.6.0-1 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * nvidia-304.37-2 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * openconnect-1:4.06-1 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * poppler-0.20.3-1 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * proftpd-1:1.3.4b-2 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * texlive-bin-2012.0-4 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs == Completed signoffs (8 total) == * linux-3.5.1-1 (i686) * binutils-2.22-10 (x86_64) * gcc-4.7.1-6 (x86_64) * glibc-2.16.0-3 (x86_64) * linux-3.5.1-1 (x86_64) * linux-api-headers-3.5.1-1 (x86_64) * kdeplasma-applets-networkmanagement-1:0.9.0.4-1 (x86_64) * networkmanager-0.9.6.0-1 (x86_64) == All packages in [testing] for more than 14 days (4 total) == * kdeplasma-applets-networkmanagement-1:0.9.0.4-1 (i686), since 2012-07-29 * kdeplasma-applets-networkmanagement-1:0.9.0.4-1 (x86_64), since 2012-07-29 * lirc-1:0.9.0-25 (i686), since 2012-07-30 * lirc-1:0.9.0-25 (x86_64), since 2012-07-30 == Top five in signoffs in last 24 hours == 1. allan - 11 signoffs 2. heftig - 8 signoffs 3. dan - 5 signoffs 4. bisson - 2 signoffs
[arch-dev-public] Fwd: ScummVM in [extra]
Any options about moving this to AUR. I dont use ScummVM. Jürgen -- Forwarded message -- From: Joe Davison Date: 2012/8/4 Subject: ScummVM in [extra] To: juer...@archlinux.org Hi there, ScummVM in [extra] has taken a while to update, so I went ahead and did it. It's attached for you. I've moved fluidsynth to optdepends and added timidity along with it; they're not required for build and can be run in daemon mode to provide MIDI support if the user wishes. This is the second time I've provided a PKGBUILD to whoever's maintaining scummvm at whatever time. It's obviously a very low priority package so maybe it might be worth thinking about moving it to the AUR. It took several months to get it to 1.4.0 (the last version I submitted a PKGBUILD for). I'd be happy to take over maintenance of it if was in the AUR. - Joe PKGBUILD Description: Binary data
