Re: [aur-general] When does a package need -svn?
Legal licence holds some more weight over their strange habits, I think. -AT On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 10:57 PM, Allan McRae al...@archlinux.org wrote: Ray Rashif wrote: Actually, it is distributed under the GPL, so that is techniqually fine... Yes, but that is why I mentioned author's intentions. But the author also intends you to provide the source when you distribute binaries. That is why they used the GPL license. So I would pick that intention over the contradictory one... Allan
[aur-general] This is intentional [community/x86_64/lib32-*] ?
Hi, In FTP there are lib32-* packages (also listed in community.abs.tar.gz community.db.tar.gz community.files.tar.gz) In website, under AUR if search these packages are listed as unsupported, and other don't appears. Examples: lib32-curl is in FTP in binary form but not listed here http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?K=lib32-curl lib32-glibc is in FTP in binary form and is listed as unsupported with the corresponding PKGBUILD http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?K=lib32-glibc (with as normal user) There is no lib32- under community, but are on ftp? http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?K=lib32-L=3 Confused! Thanks, -- Gerardo Exequiel Pozzi ( djgera ) http://www.djgera.com.ar KeyID: 0x1B8C330D Key fingerprint = 0CAA D5D4 CD85 4434 A219 76ED 39AB 221B 1B8C 330D
Re: [aur-general] This is intentional [community/x86_64/lib32-*] ?
http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/5736 On 25/04/2009, Gerardo Exequiel Pozzi vmlinuz...@yahoo.com.ar wrote: Hi, In FTP there are lib32-* packages (also listed in community.abs.tar.gz community.db.tar.gz community.files.tar.gz) In website, under AUR if search these packages are listed as unsupported, and other don't appears. Examples: lib32-curl is in FTP in binary form but not listed here http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?K=lib32-curl lib32-glibc is in FTP in binary form and is listed as unsupported with the corresponding PKGBUILD http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?K=lib32-glibc (with as normal user) There is no lib32- under community, but are on ftp? http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?K=lib32-L=3 Confused! Thanks, -- Gerardo Exequiel Pozzi ( djgera ) http://www.djgera.com.ar KeyID: 0x1B8C330D Key fingerprint = 0CAA D5D4 CD85 4434 A219 76ED 39AB 221B 1B8C 330D -- Andrea `BaSh` Scarpino Arch Linux Developer
Re: [aur-general] This is intentional [community/x86_64/lib32-*] ?
Andrea Scarpino wrote: http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/5736 On 25/04/2009, Gerardo Exequiel Pozzi vmlinuz...@yahoo.com.ar wrote: Hi, In FTP there are lib32-* packages (also listed in community.abs.tar.gz community.db.tar.gz community.files.tar.gz) In website, under AUR if search these packages are listed as unsupported, and other don't appears. Confused! Thanks, Ohh very old issue!, Thanks Andrea. -- Gerardo Exequiel Pozzi ( djgera ) http://www.djgera.com.ar KeyID: 0x1B8C330D Key fingerprint = 0CAA D5D4 CD85 4434 A219 76ED 39AB 221B 1B8C 330D
Re: [aur-general] Problems with scilab packages
Stefan Husmann wrote: Stefan Husmann schrieb: Gerardo Exequiel Pozzi schrieb: Stefan Husmann wrote: Hello, I have a strange problem with the scilab packages I maintain in [community]. The i686 version lacks a directory /usr/share/scilab/modules/helptools/jar/ , which is needed for the help browser. The package for x86_64 has this directory. I have no idea why this ist the case, since they both use the same PKGBUILD. Any hints are appreciated. Regards Stefan Hi :) You are building from a clean dir on x86_64? rm -rf src pkg because... That was my first thought, too, but yes, the dir was clean. In the Changelog: * bug 4302 fixed - Do not build the helptool module when --disable-build-help is used You use -disable-build-help in PKGBUILD PS: configure: WARNING: unrecognized options: --with-install-help-file Without --disable-build-help the build fails on both architectures. I will try without --with-install-help-file. Thank you for your suggestions. Regards Stefan Sorry, that did not help. Other ideas? Regards Stefan Hi Stefan This is that I do: - ./configure --prefix=/usr --disable-build-help --with-install-help-file \ + ./configure --prefix=/usr \ - make all doc + make The result package is the same plus the helptools.jar ;) [djg...@gerardo /tmp]$ diff (tar tf /var/cache/pacman/pkg/scilab-5.1.1-2.pkg.tar.gz | sort -u) (tar tf scilab/scilab-5.1.1-2-i686.pkg.tar.gz | sort -u) 6700a6701,6702 usr/share/scilab/modules/helptools/jar/ usr/share/scilab/modules/helptools/jar/org.scilab.modules.helptools.jar [djg...@gerardo /tmp]$ PS: --with-install-help-file is ignored, don't have any behaviour, so put or not is the same. -- Gerardo Exequiel Pozzi ( djgera ) http://www.djgera.com.ar KeyID: 0x1B8C330D Key fingerprint = 0CAA D5D4 CD85 4434 A219 76ED 39AB 221B 1B8C 330D
[aur-general] Delete request
Hi, this package can be deleted: http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=5265 The project doesn't exist anymore and the source files aren't around anywhere anymore... Thanks, vinz
[aur-general] Delete request
Hi, http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=9887 seems to be a duplicate to http://www.archlinux.org/packages/?arch=repo=q=vsftpdlast_update=limit=50 Please delete it. Thanks, vinz
Re: [aur-general] When does a package need -svn?
Ray Rashif schivmeis...@gmail.com wrote: But the author also intends you to provide the source when you distribute binaries. So in that case we can host the sources ourselves? I don't know if it'll be right to do so..especially if people start downloading from there instead. Legally, the GPL allows and encourages that. Also, the author cannot take action but he _can_ blacklist people on his own papers because in that particular situation we are not helping him. That's what I'm afraid of. Have you tried contacting the author? If you explained the packaging system to him and offered to include a post-installation message of his choice (e.g. message from the author: I work hard on this. If you find it useful, please consider making a donation blah blah blah...) then perhaps he would agree to some arrangement (e.g. he consents to your hosting the sources). I don't know how likely that is but I think it's worth asking. Even if the GPL fully supports hosting the files and distributing them as you wish, it's bad style to completely disregard the author's wishes. Try to work something out with him (her?) first. If all else fails, I can put you in touch with my very persuasive associates: http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?pid=542194#p542194 /Xyne
[aur-general] Deletion request for 'changefirefoxicon'
I request the AUR package 'changefirefoxicon' be deleted for duplicate (of 'firefox-branded') and severe breach of all good PKGBUILD rules. Just look at it, but I warn you as you might fall right from your chair either laughing or crying. Please just delete it.
Re: [aur-general] Deletion request for 'changefirefoxicon'
On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 01:02, Abhishek Dasgupta abh...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/4/26 Sven-Hendrik Haase s...@lutzhaase.com: I request the AUR package 'changefirefoxicon' be deleted for duplicate (of 'firefox-branded') and severe breach of all good PKGBUILD rules. Just look at it, but I warn you as you might fall right from your chair either laughing or crying. Please just delete it. Deleted. That was certainly the strangest PKGBUILD I'd ever seen! -- Abhishek Damn, did anyone save a copy? I want to see it...
