Re: [aur-general] makechrootpkg
On Tuesday 24 August 2010 08:36:39 Nathan O wrote: > On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 1:31 AM, Ike Devolder wrote: > > On Tuesday 24 August 2010 08:18:23 Nathan O wrote: > > > Is there a way to make 'makechrootpkg' use clyde so it will install > > > > missing > > > > > dependencies from AUR? I looked at /etc/makepkg.conf /etc/pacman.conf > > > and couldn't find an option. I also looked at the source for > > > makechrootpkg > > > > and > > > > > didn't see anything I could change to make it use clyde instead of > > > > pacman. > > > > > Thanks > > > > http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/DeveloperWiki:Building_in_a_Clean_Chr > > oot > > > > all unrecognized args get passed to makepkg, so maybe, there is a need to > > install sudo in your chroot and then you can use '-s' and '-r' opions to - c > > makepkg for the dependency resolving > > I did sudo pacman -S sudo -r /aur/ and retried and it still doesn't find > the package in AUR. Did you follow the steps in the wiki to create the chroot ? usage makechrootpkg [options] -r [--] [makepkg args] so for example makechrootpkg -c -r /home/myhome/archchroot -- -s -c -r the first -c will clean your chroot the first -r says where you have put your chroot -- means the rest of the args goto makepkg -s == get the deps as stated in the PKGBUILD -c == cleanup after build ( remove src and pkg dirs ) -r == remove dependencies after build the -s and -r flags for makepkg require sudo more extended information can be found here: http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Makepkg of course in combination with the Clean Chroot documentation hope it helps you on track
Re: [aur-general] makechrootpkg
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 1:31 AM, Ike Devolder wrote: > On Tuesday 24 August 2010 08:18:23 Nathan O wrote: > > Is there a way to make 'makechrootpkg' use clyde so it will install > missing > > dependencies from AUR? I looked at /etc/makepkg.conf /etc/pacman.conf and > > couldn't find an option. I also looked at the source for makechrootpkg > and > > didn't see anything I could change to make it use clyde instead of > pacman. > > > > Thanks > > > http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/DeveloperWiki:Building_in_a_Clean_Chroot > > all unrecognized args get passed to makepkg, so maybe, there is a need to > install sudo in your chroot and then you can use '-s' and '-r' opions to > makepkg for the dependency resolving > I did sudo pacman -S sudo -r /aur/ and retried and it still doesn't find the package in AUR.
Re: [aur-general] makechrootpkg
On Tuesday 24 August 2010 08:18:23 Nathan O wrote: > Is there a way to make 'makechrootpkg' use clyde so it will install missing > dependencies from AUR? I looked at /etc/makepkg.conf /etc/pacman.conf and > couldn't find an option. I also looked at the source for makechrootpkg and > didn't see anything I could change to make it use clyde instead of pacman. > > Thanks http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/DeveloperWiki:Building_in_a_Clean_Chroot all unrecognized args get passed to makepkg, so maybe, there is a need to install sudo in your chroot and then you can use '-s' and '-r' opions to makepkg for the dependency resolving
Re: [aur-general] updated PKGBUILD for gcc-avr
On 08/24/2010 07:48 AM, Gerardo Exequiel Pozzi wrote:
Hello,
I am again around here :)
* update from 4.5 snapshot to 4.5.1, no other changes needed.
* remove || return 1
* use ${_basedir} like gcc package for select snapshot/release
* add missing custom licence
Patch against svn trunk can be downloaded from here
http://gist.github.com/546973
Good luck!
i'm on it
--
Ionuț
[aur-general] makechrootpkg
Is there a way to make 'makechrootpkg' use clyde so it will install missing dependencies from AUR? I looked at /etc/makepkg.conf /etc/pacman.conf and couldn't find an option. I also looked at the source for makechrootpkg and didn't see anything I could change to make it use clyde instead of pacman. Thanks
Re: [aur-general] Moving vlc-pulse to [community]
It's just the plugin to go with vlc from [extra]. 2010/8/24 Ng Oon-Ee : > On Tue, 2010-08-24 at 07:53 +0200, Jan Steffens wrote: >> I would like to move vlc-pulse into [community], to provide VLC with >> native PulseAudio output. >> >> Are there any objections? > > I'd like that =). It would be a separate package still, wouldn't it? > >
Re: [aur-general] Moving vlc-pulse to [community]
On Tue, 2010-08-24 at 07:53 +0200, Jan Steffens wrote: > I would like to move vlc-pulse into [community], to provide VLC with > native PulseAudio output. > > Are there any objections? I'd like that =). It would be a separate package still, wouldn't it?
Re: [aur-general] Moving vlc-pulse to [community]
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 8:53 AM, Jan Steffens wrote: > I would like to move vlc-pulse into [community], to provide VLC with > native PulseAudio output. > > Are there any objections? Nope, go ahead.
[aur-general] Moving vlc-pulse to [community]
I would like to move vlc-pulse into [community], to provide VLC with native PulseAudio output. Are there any objections?
Re: [aur-general] TU process
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 12:25 AM, Brad Fanella wrote: > Hi Nathan, > I took a look at your packages, and they look really nice. Try to avoid > using "|| return 1" though. Other than that, I wish you luck, and if I was > a > trusted user (must wait for voting period), then I would strongly consider > sponsoring you, given you could prove you are able to use basic utilities > such as patch. > > Thanks, > Brad > I have used patch before. So I know how to use the patch command, though I have tried to create my own patches using 'diff' between the stable and SVN(or other).
Re: [aur-general] Delete request
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 12:27 AM, Evangelos Foutras wrote: > On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 8:17 AM, Nathan O wrote: > > Can batman be deleted http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=22177 the > > package is named wrong, should be named batmand. I am currently updating > it > > to update the package to the correct name. > > > > Thanks > > Done. > Thank you
Re: [aur-general] Delete request
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 8:17 AM, Nathan O wrote: > Can batman be deleted http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=22177 the > package is named wrong, should be named batmand. I am currently updating it > to update the package to the correct name. > > Thanks Done.
Re: [aur-general] TU process
Hi Nathan, I took a look at your packages, and they look really nice. Try to avoid using "|| return 1" though. Other than that, I wish you luck, and if I was a trusted user (must wait for voting period), then I would strongly consider sponsoring you, given you could prove you are able to use basic utilities such as patch. Thanks, Brad
[aur-general] Delete request
Can batman be deleted http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=22177 the package is named wrong, should be named batmand. I am currently updating it to update the package to the correct name. Thanks
Re: [aur-general] TU process
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 12:05 AM, Brad Fanella wrote: > On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 12:01 AM, Nathan O wrote: > > > I am not good at resume' like stuff LOL. I mean I don't know programming > > which would probably be kind of looked down on. Though on the upside I am > > online every night :) > > > > It's fine, as long as you are familiar with things such as shell scripting, > patch, sed, and building packages from source. > > Oh, and please don't top-post. I had to find out the hard way. :-) > Thanks, > Brad > Sorry, I forget which way is prefered, hopely I will remember. I know Gmail tends to automaticly select the typing area to be above the other post(s).
Re: [aur-general] TU process
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 12:01 AM, Nathan O wrote: > I am not good at resume' like stuff LOL. I mean I don't know programming > which would probably be kind of looked down on. Though on the upside I am > online every night :) > It's fine, as long as you are familiar with things such as shell scripting, patch, sed, and building packages from source. Oh, and please don't top-post. I had to find out the hard way. :-) Thanks, Brad
Re: [aur-general] TU process
On 08/24/10 01:01, Nathan O wrote: I am not good at resume' like stuff LOL. I mean I don't know programming which would probably be kind of looked down on. ...PKGBUILD format is a type of programming! Especially when it gets complicated. It's after all written in 'bash'. (By the way, remember not to top-post! Arch-ers seem to mind.) -Isaac
Re: [aur-general] TU process
I am not good at resume' like stuff LOL. I mean I don't know programming which would probably be kind of looked down on. Though on the upside I am online every night :) On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 11:55 PM, Brad Fanella wrote: > On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 11:42 PM, Nathan O wrote: > > > Just wondering what steps do I need to take to apply for TU? > > > Hi Nathan, > I just recently asked the same questions. You need to send an application > to > this mailing list explaining your skills, why you would be beneficial to > the > team, etc. If you don't have one already, you will need to find a sponsor > (one of the current trusted users that chooses to sponsor you). The current > team will then vote on your application and then you will eventually get > your response. :-) > > Thanks, > Brad >
Re: [aur-general] TU process
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 11:42 PM, Nathan O wrote: > Just wondering what steps do I need to take to apply for TU? Hi Nathan, I just recently asked the same questions. You need to send an application to this mailing list explaining your skills, why you would be beneficial to the team, etc. If you don't have one already, you will need to find a sponsor (one of the current trusted users that chooses to sponsor you). The current team will then vote on your application and then you will eventually get your response. :-) Thanks, Brad
[aur-general] updated PKGBUILD for gcc-avr
Hello,
I am again around here :)
* update from 4.5 snapshot to 4.5.1, no other changes needed.
* remove || return 1
* use ${_basedir} like gcc package for select snapshot/release
* add missing custom licence
Patch against svn trunk can be downloaded from here
http://gist.github.com/546973
Good luck!
--
Gerardo Exequiel Pozzi
\cos^2\alpha + \sin^2\alpha = 1
[aur-general] TU process
Just wondering what steps do I need to take to apply for TU? I have packaged for AUR previously under ndowen...@gmail.com(as I mentioned, I created this address strictly for AUR purposes). This is not, by the way, a TU application. I am just wondering what would I need to do in order to be concidered for TU. Thanks P.S. Previously one time I applied for TU, some of the complaints were how I wrote messages. Which I have improved on, because I am a Moderator on a forum and typing messages more professionally has helped me :)
Re: [aur-general] Quality
I will probably update it to:
install -Dm 755 cdplay ${pkgdir}/usr/bin/
install -Dm 755 eject ${pkgdir}/usr/bin/
This way it will install in the dir, and less text :)
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 2:31 PM, Philipp Überbacher
wrote:
> Excerpts from Nathan O's message of 2010-08-23 19:50:51 +0200:
> > Thanks for the suggestions. I had to do
> > install -Dm 755 cdplay $pkgdir/usr/bin
> > install -Dm 755 eject $pkgdir/usr/bin
> >
> > If I remember correctly because you couldn't run make install or
> something,
> > but I will check tonight if the eject one is nessisary.
>
> To make clear what's wrong with this: It installs cdplay as
> $pkgdir/usr/bin and then eject as $pkgdir/usr/bin. Not into, as. Check
> the /pkg directory to see it with your own eyes.
>
> Correct syntax would be: install -Dm 755 cdplay $pkgdir/usr/bin/cdplay
>
> I think almost everyone fell into this trap at one time or another.
>
> Good luck :)
> --
> Philipp
>
> --
> "Wir stehen selbst enttäuscht und sehn betroffen / Den Vorhang zu
> und alle Fragen offen." Bertolt Brecht, Der gute Mensch von Sezuan
>
>
Re: [aur-general] Licenses, GPL3 only
Excerpts from Ray Rashif's message of 2010-08-23 21:56:29 +0200: > On 23 August 2010 20:47, Magnus Therning wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 13:15, Philipp Überbacher > > wrote: > >> Excerpts from Ray Rashif's message of 2010-08-23 12:47:44 +0200: > > [...] > >>> The Linux kernel, IIRC, was made GPL2 only when GPL3 was released. > >> > >> That may be, I don't know. If that was the case, then any version up to > >> that > >> point could be used with any GPL version, be it 3, 4, 5 ... > > > > AFAIK Linux has been GPLv2 only since version 2.4.0, i.e. from January 4th > > 2001. Work on GPLv3 didn't start until late 2005. > > s/released/was in planning/ > > Linux has been GPL2-only since Linus realised he didn't like what was > going to come, as quoted [1]: > > "Why? There's been some discussions of a GPL v3 which would limit licensing > to certain "well-behaved" parties, and I'm not sure I'd agree with such > restrictions - and the GPL itself allows for "any version" so I wanted to > make this part unambigious as far as my personal code is concerned." > > This started the "GPLn-only" trend. The so-called standard the wiki > mentions was only discussed after the distribute-GPL-sources fiasco > [2], but I could be wrong. Before that, very few people actually > bothered to note the differences between a GPL and a GPLn license, > using "GPL" to refer to both. This is evident on a more prominent > scale from the LKML discussion. > > I don't know of any software besides the kernel having a GPL2-only > license, but there probably are. It is perfectly valid, but I don't > think it warrants any kind of discussion or standard yet. Like > mentioned, use: > > custom:GPL3-only > > [1] http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0009.1/0096.html > [2] http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/5355 Thanks, nice to see where it started. All clear now. -- Philipp -- "Wir stehen selbst enttäuscht und sehn betroffen / Den Vorhang zu und alle Fragen offen." Bertolt Brecht, Der gute Mensch von Sezuan
Re: [aur-general] TU application
On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 20:15:29 +0200 Lukáš Jirkovský wrote: > I see svenstaro moved my "crown jewel" – package ufoai into community. As I just found a nice game for this evening by this complain, take my "Yes" as granted. (Seriously: You already had it, I read a lot of positive stuff written by you.) But feel free to hit Sven for that once you enter our strange tower ;-) -- Jabber: atsut...@freethoughts.de Blog: http://atsutane.freethoughts.de/ Key: 295AFBF4 FP: 39F8 80E5 0E49 A4D1 1341 E8F9 39E4 F17F 295A FBF4 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [aur-general] Licenses, GPL3 only
On Monday 23 August 2010 16:56:29 Ray Rashif wrote: > I don't know of any software besides the kernel having a GPL2-only > license, but there probably are. It is perfectly valid, but I don't > think it warrants any kind of discussion or standard yet. Like > mentioned, use: I don't think I am that original, and I have one: http://code.google.com/p/urssus/ (it's in AUR)
Re: [aur-general] Licenses, GPL3 only
On 23 August 2010 20:47, Magnus Therning wrote: > On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 13:15, Philipp Überbacher > wrote: >> Excerpts from Ray Rashif's message of 2010-08-23 12:47:44 +0200: > [...] >>> The Linux kernel, IIRC, was made GPL2 only when GPL3 was released. >> >> That may be, I don't know. If that was the case, then any version up to that >> point could be used with any GPL version, be it 3, 4, 5 ... > > AFAIK Linux has been GPLv2 only since version 2.4.0, i.e. from January 4th > 2001. Work on GPLv3 didn't start until late 2005. s/released/was in planning/ Linux has been GPL2-only since Linus realised he didn't like what was going to come, as quoted [1]: "Why? There's been some discussions of a GPL v3 which would limit licensing to certain "well-behaved" parties, and I'm not sure I'd agree with such restrictions - and the GPL itself allows for "any version" so I wanted to make this part unambigious as far as my personal code is concerned." This started the "GPLn-only" trend. The so-called standard the wiki mentions was only discussed after the distribute-GPL-sources fiasco [2], but I could be wrong. Before that, very few people actually bothered to note the differences between a GPL and a GPLn license, using "GPL" to refer to both. This is evident on a more prominent scale from the LKML discussion. I don't know of any software besides the kernel having a GPL2-only license, but there probably are. It is perfectly valid, but I don't think it warrants any kind of discussion or standard yet. Like mentioned, use: custom:GPL3-only [1] http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0009.1/0096.html [2] http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/5355 -- GPG/PGP ID: B42DDCAD
Re: [aur-general] Quality
Excerpts from Nathan O's message of 2010-08-23 19:50:51 +0200: > Thanks for the suggestions. I had to do > install -Dm 755 cdplay $pkgdir/usr/bin > install -Dm 755 eject $pkgdir/usr/bin > > If I remember correctly because you couldn't run make install or something, > but I will check tonight if the eject one is nessisary. To make clear what's wrong with this: It installs cdplay as $pkgdir/usr/bin and then eject as $pkgdir/usr/bin. Not into, as. Check the /pkg directory to see it with your own eyes. Correct syntax would be: install -Dm 755 cdplay $pkgdir/usr/bin/cdplay I think almost everyone fell into this trap at one time or another. Good luck :) -- Philipp -- "Wir stehen selbst enttäuscht und sehn betroffen / Den Vorhang zu und alle Fragen offen." Bertolt Brecht, Der gute Mensch von Sezuan
Re: [aur-general] TU application
I see svenstaro moved my "crown jewel" – package ufoai into community.
Re: [aur-general] DestroyTwitter
Yeah I can imagine how it would feel, though I would be interested in DestroyTwitter if the maintainer doesn't answer. I already have a cleaner version of the package ready to be used :) On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 7:52 AM, Peter Lewis wrote: > On Sunday 22 August 2010 at 08:10 Ranguvar wrote: > > On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 02:56, Nathan O wrote: > > > How long do I have to wait before a package would be concidered to be > > > orphaned. I left a comment containing how the PKGBUILD should be done > and > > > the next day emailed the maintainer, and I have not a response yet. It > > > has been roughly 3-4 days. > > > > I'd wait at least 8 days or so. Sometimes people go on vacation or > > are otherwise unavailable, etc. > > Indeed. In the UK it's quite normal to go on holiday for two weeks or so, > especially in August. If I'd been away and found that my stuff had been > orphaned while I was sunning myself, I think I'd be a little disappointed. > > Cheers, > > Pete. >
Re: [aur-general] Quality
Thanks for the suggestions. I had to do
install -Dm 755 cdplay $pkgdir/usr/bin
install -Dm 755 eject $pkgdir/usr/bin
If I remember correctly because you couldn't run make install or something,
but I will check tonight if the eject one is nessisary. Algoscore was a pain
in the butt, though it isn't fixed though, though I will try the cmake like
you mentioned. There seems to be also something wrong with algoscore itself,
if you try and run it, it will crash.
Though I may try the svn version of algoscore and if it works, then I will
request "algoscore" to be deleted and offer the svn version.
On the audiomove package, I probably added my name and email and quickly
went over the package for obvious problems.
Probably at the time I was looking though AUR for some orphan packages I
would want to take over and edited them quickly.
I hope I improve my packages and you all will find them of quality :)
Thanks
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 4:49 AM, Philipp Überbacher
wrote:
> One more pick, jackie:
> http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=30652
>
> - wrong upstream URL
> - i686 only?
> - makedepends=('make' 'gcc' 'pkgconfig')
> - PREFIX="/usr" twice?
> - || return 1
>
> And just to mention one more thing: check the licenses, they are often
> wrong. Not in this case, and I forgot to check with the previous ones,
> but in general people tend to get them wrong. There is some page on the
> wiki that helps you translate the pacman string to human readable. GPL
> afaik translates to GPL2, GPL2 to GPL2 only or something..
> but I'm never sure about that stuff.
> --
> Philipp
>
> --
> "Wir stehen selbst enttäuscht und sehn betroffen / Den Vorhang zu
> und alle Fragen offen." Bertolt Brecht, Der gute Mensch von Sezuan
>
>
Re: [aur-general] ardour-lv2
On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 16:24:06 +0200 Philipp Überbacher wrote: > Excerpts from Ng Oon-Ee's message of 2010-08-23 16:06:54 +0200: > > On Mon, 2010-08-23 at 14:03 +0200, Philipp Überbacher wrote: > > > Excerpts from Ty John (sand_man)'s message of 2010-08-23 13:53:51 > > > +0200: > > > > On Mon, 2010-08-23 at 19:30 +0800, Ray Rashif wrote: > > > > > On 23 August 2010 19:25, Ty John (sand_man) > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > I can't believe I didn't see the 'adopt' button. > > > > > > > > > > > > Yeah I wasn't sure if it's the same or not. Does the one in > > > > > > extra support lv2 plugins? It doesn't seem to be > > > > > > specifically compiled in the same way. > > > > > > I'll keep it updated for now. > > > > > > > > > > Yes, extra/ardour is compiled with LV2 support. The only > > > > > difference between the two different binaries would be > > > > > whatever change is influenced by having FFT_ANALYSIS. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > GPG/PGP ID: B42DDCAD > > > > > > > > > > > > > I see. > > > > FFT is an audio visualisation tool. I guess this package > > > > probably shouldn't really be called -lv2 then. > > > > > > When I created it, the [extra] package wasn't built with lv2 > > > support (slv2 wasn't in [extra] either). It appeared sensible at > > > the time, because lv2 support was the major difference. > > > > \me goes to uninstall ardour-lv2 and update from extra =). > > > > Thanks, you're right, the lv2 support was the big difference. I > > recommend ardour-lv2 can be removed, since its not required anymore > > with [extra] having lv2 support. > > Yeah, I did the same. > The difference is small now and -lv2 is a misnomer now, so I'd also be > in favor of removal. The [extra] PKGBUILD is good now and easy to > modify anyway. Removed. -- Jabber: atsut...@freethoughts.de Blog: http://atsutane.freethoughts.de/ Key: 295AFBF4 FP: 39F8 80E5 0E49 A4D1 1341 E8F9 39E4 F17F 295A FBF4 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [aur-general] ardour-lv2
Excerpts from Ng Oon-Ee's message of 2010-08-23 16:06:54 +0200: > On Mon, 2010-08-23 at 14:03 +0200, Philipp Überbacher wrote: > > Excerpts from Ty John (sand_man)'s message of 2010-08-23 13:53:51 +0200: > > > On Mon, 2010-08-23 at 19:30 +0800, Ray Rashif wrote: > > > > On 23 August 2010 19:25, Ty John (sand_man) > > > > wrote: > > > > > On Mon, 2010-08-23 at 12:24 +0200, Philipp Überbacher wrote: > > > > >> Excerpts from Ty John (sand_man)'s message of 2010-08-23 12:13:11 > > > > >> +0200: > > > > >> > I noticed this package is currently unmaintained. > > > > >> > Can I adopt this? > > > > >> > > > > >> Please do so, if you think it's still needed. > > > > >> I orphaned it because I lost interest in the program, but afaik in > > > > >> the > > > > >> meantime there's hardly a difference between this package and the > > > > >> one in > > > > >> [extra]. > > > > > > > > > > I can't believe I didn't see the 'adopt' button. > > > > > > > > > > Yeah I wasn't sure if it's the same or not. Does the one in extra > > > > > support lv2 plugins? It doesn't seem to be specifically compiled in > > > > > the > > > > > same way. > > > > > I'll keep it updated for now. > > > > > > > > Yes, extra/ardour is compiled with LV2 support. The only difference > > > > between the two different binaries would be whatever change is > > > > influenced by having FFT_ANALYSIS. > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > GPG/PGP ID: B42DDCAD > > > > > > > > > > I see. > > > FFT is an audio visualisation tool. I guess this package probably > > > shouldn't really be called -lv2 then. > > > > When I created it, the [extra] package wasn't built with lv2 support > > (slv2 wasn't in [extra] either). It appeared sensible at the time, > > because lv2 support was the major difference. > > \me goes to uninstall ardour-lv2 and update from extra =). > > Thanks, you're right, the lv2 support was the big difference. I > recommend ardour-lv2 can be removed, since its not required anymore with > [extra] having lv2 support. Yeah, I did the same. The difference is small now and -lv2 is a misnomer now, so I'd also be in favor of removal. The [extra] PKGBUILD is good now and easy to modify anyway. -- Philipp -- "Wir stehen selbst enttäuscht und sehn betroffen / Den Vorhang zu und alle Fragen offen." Bertolt Brecht, Der gute Mensch von Sezuan
Re: [aur-general] ardour-lv2
On Mon, 2010-08-23 at 14:03 +0200, Philipp Überbacher wrote: > Excerpts from Ty John (sand_man)'s message of 2010-08-23 13:53:51 +0200: > > On Mon, 2010-08-23 at 19:30 +0800, Ray Rashif wrote: > > > On 23 August 2010 19:25, Ty John (sand_man) wrote: > > > > On Mon, 2010-08-23 at 12:24 +0200, Philipp Überbacher wrote: > > > >> Excerpts from Ty John (sand_man)'s message of 2010-08-23 12:13:11 > > > >> +0200: > > > >> > I noticed this package is currently unmaintained. > > > >> > Can I adopt this? > > > >> > > > >> Please do so, if you think it's still needed. > > > >> I orphaned it because I lost interest in the program, but afaik in the > > > >> meantime there's hardly a difference between this package and the one > > > >> in > > > >> [extra]. > > > > > > > > I can't believe I didn't see the 'adopt' button. > > > > > > > > Yeah I wasn't sure if it's the same or not. Does the one in extra > > > > support lv2 plugins? It doesn't seem to be specifically compiled in the > > > > same way. > > > > I'll keep it updated for now. > > > > > > Yes, extra/ardour is compiled with LV2 support. The only difference > > > between the two different binaries would be whatever change is > > > influenced by having FFT_ANALYSIS. > > > > > > > > > -- > > > GPG/PGP ID: B42DDCAD > > > > > > > I see. > > FFT is an audio visualisation tool. I guess this package probably > > shouldn't really be called -lv2 then. > > When I created it, the [extra] package wasn't built with lv2 support > (slv2 wasn't in [extra] either). It appeared sensible at the time, > because lv2 support was the major difference. \me goes to uninstall ardour-lv2 and update from extra =). Thanks, you're right, the lv2 support was the big difference. I recommend ardour-lv2 can be removed, since its not required anymore with [extra] having lv2 support.
Re: [aur-general] Licenses, GPL3 only
Excerpts from Magnus Therning's message of 2010-08-23 14:47:32 +0200: > On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 13:15, Philipp Überbacher > wrote: > > Excerpts from Ray Rashif's message of 2010-08-23 12:47:44 +0200: > [...] > >> The Linux kernel, IIRC, was made GPL2 only when GPL3 was released. > > > > That may be, I don't know. If that was the case, then any version up to that > > point could be used with any GPL version, be it 3, 4, 5 ... > > AFAIK Linux has been GPLv2 only since version 2.4.0, i.e. from January 4th > 2001. Work on GPLv3 didn't start until late 2005. > > Personally I think it's only prudent to know *exactly* what license SW I write > is released under. So releasing under GPLv3 only before GPLv4 is released > makes sense; I also think that applying licenses retroactively is troublesome, > so it's worth being specific from the beginning. > > OTOH it doesn't bother me at all that Arch's packaging system currently lacks > a way of accurately specifying the license for some software. I think it's > very little chance of that ever counting for anything in court. As long as > upstream provide clear information the Arch package can say pretty much > anything. > > /M I also doubt it has legal significance, but it would be good if the information we provide was accurate. I believe pacman still can't search by license, so it doesn't matter that much. Spreading inaccurate information is just annoying. One example I ran into a couple of times: A package description said: "provides for GNOME" when it was in reality a gtk program without gnome dependencies. It also swings the other way around, but less often. Point being: accurate information helps the user, inaccurate information can be troublesome. -- Philipp -- "Wir stehen selbst enttäuscht und sehn betroffen / Den Vorhang zu und alle Fragen offen." Bertolt Brecht, Der gute Mensch von Sezuan
Re: [aur-general] DestroyTwitter
On Sunday 22 August 2010 at 08:10 Ranguvar wrote: > On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 02:56, Nathan O wrote: > > How long do I have to wait before a package would be concidered to be > > orphaned. I left a comment containing how the PKGBUILD should be done and > > the next day emailed the maintainer, and I have not a response yet. It > > has been roughly 3-4 days. > > I'd wait at least 8 days or so. Sometimes people go on vacation or > are otherwise unavailable, etc. Indeed. In the UK it's quite normal to go on holiday for two weeks or so, especially in August. If I'd been away and found that my stuff had been orphaned while I was sunning myself, I think I'd be a little disappointed. Cheers, Pete.
Re: [aur-general] Licenses, GPL3 only
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 13:15, Philipp Überbacher wrote: > Excerpts from Ray Rashif's message of 2010-08-23 12:47:44 +0200: [...] >> The Linux kernel, IIRC, was made GPL2 only when GPL3 was released. > > That may be, I don't know. If that was the case, then any version up to that > point could be used with any GPL version, be it 3, 4, 5 ... AFAIK Linux has been GPLv2 only since version 2.4.0, i.e. from January 4th 2001. Work on GPLv3 didn't start until late 2005. Personally I think it's only prudent to know *exactly* what license SW I write is released under. So releasing under GPLv3 only before GPLv4 is released makes sense; I also think that applying licenses retroactively is troublesome, so it's worth being specific from the beginning. OTOH it doesn't bother me at all that Arch's packaging system currently lacks a way of accurately specifying the license for some software. I think it's very little chance of that ever counting for anything in court. As long as upstream provide clear information the Arch package can say pretty much anything. /M -- Magnus Therning (OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4) magnus＠therning．org Jabber: magnus＠therning．org http://therning.org/magnus identi.ca|twitter: magthe
Re: [aur-general] Licenses, GPL3 only
On Monday 23 August 2010 09:15:05 Philipp Überbacher wrote: > That's how it works now. The default text reads > "or, at your option, any later version". Removing that is the way to > make it 'only this version'. No, that is not correct. What decides what version of the GPL covers your code is what you put in the README or in the source files themselves. If you put there "Licensed under the GPLv2" it's v2 only, no matter what the COPYING file itself says, because that's just an explanation on how to license your code.
Re: [aur-general] Licenses, GPL3 only
Excerpts from Nathan Wayde's message of 2010-08-23 12:59:23 +0200: > On 23/08/10 11:03, Philipp wrote: > > Hi, > > I just looked up the GPL notation again. > > Here's the relevant excerpt from the wiki: > [...] > > How would you specify that a program is GPL3 only? > > > > Regards, > > Modify the license file/template to make it clear that it's GPL3 only > and then include it in the PKGBUILD as a custom license. It at least > avoid all ambiguities if nothing else. Yep, thanks. I believe this is indeed the only correct way to do it until Arch has a license scheme that takes the possibility into account. -- Philipp -- "Wir stehen selbst enttäuscht und sehn betroffen / Den Vorhang zu und alle Fragen offen." Bertolt Brecht, Der gute Mensch von Sezuan
Re: [aur-general] Licenses, GPL3 only
Excerpts from Ray Rashif's message of 2010-08-23 12:47:44 +0200: > On 23 August 2010 18:03, Philipp wrote: > > Hi, > > I just looked up the GPL notation again. > > Here's the relevant excerpt from the wiki: > > > > http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_Packaging_Standards > > > > .. > > The (L)GPL has many versions and permutations of those versions. > > For (L)GPL software, the convention is: > > > > * (L)GPL - (L)GPLv2 or any later version > > * (L)GPL2 - (L)GPL2 only > > * (L)GPL3 - (L)GPL3 or any later version > > > > > > Now besides that this is obviously confusing there's another problem. > > How would you specify that a program is GPL3 only? > > I think what you're trying to say is that you should be allowed to use > a license and strictly forbid later versions from having an influence. > But I believe that's not how it works. That's how it works now. The default text reads "or, at your option, any later version". Removing that is the way to make it 'only this version'. > The Linux kernel, IIRC, was made GPL2 only when GPL3 was released. That may be, I don't know. If that was the case, then any version up to that point could be used with any GPL version, be it 3, 4, 5 ... -- Philipp -- "Wir stehen selbst enttäuscht und sehn betroffen / Den Vorhang zu und alle Fragen offen." Bertolt Brecht, Der gute Mensch von Sezuan
Re: [aur-general] Licenses, GPL3 only
Excerpts from Ronald van Haren's message of 2010-08-23 12:36:52 +0200: > On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 12:21 PM, Philipp Überbacher > wrote: > > Excerpts from Ronald van Haren's message of 2010-08-23 12:06:24 +0200: > >> On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 12:03 PM, Philipp wrote: > >> > Hi, > >> > I just looked up the GPL notation again. > >> > Here's the relevant excerpt from the wiki: > >> > > >> > http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_Packaging_Standards > >> > > >> > .. > >> > The (L)GPL has many versions and permutations of those versions. > >> > For (L)GPL software, the convention is: > >> > > >> > * (L)GPL - (L)GPLv2 or any later version > >> > * (L)GPL2 - (L)GPL2 only > >> > * (L)GPL3 - (L)GPL3 or any later version > >> > > >> > > >> > Now besides that this is obviously confusing there's another problem. > >> > How would you specify that a program is GPL3 only? > >> > > >> > >> Since when is GPL4 released? > >> > >> Ronald > > > > It isn't afaik, but that doesn't matter. > > Both the GPL2 and GPL3 text contain something along the lines of: > > ", or (at your option) any later version." > > > > You have to remove that to say it's GPL2 or GPL3 only. > > > > Just because GPL4/5/6/.. doesn't exist yet it doesn't mean you can't > > say that your program can't be redistributed using those licenses. > > > > I'm a bit conservative in this case, I rather wait until a license > > exists before I say that my program can be distributed using said > > license, hence my program is GPL3 only. > > -- > > Well obviously, but GPL4 can be as far as 10 years away, if it will be > released at all. Until that time gpl3 or later is equal to gpl3 as > there is nothing later. I presume if gpl4 will be released a similar > transition can be made like was done after gpl3 was released. Most > likely gpl3 will become gpl3 only and... well we can discuss that when > the time is there. Well, yes, for Arch it makes no difference at this time, for my program it does make a difference, so yeah, it's a correctness thing. > It doesn't make much sense to do this now, it should have been done > when we introduced this scheme (maybe it even was, I don't recall) and > now we should just wait for when it needs fixing. > You can always file a bug if a package is distributed under the wrong license. > > Ronald Yep, it very much looks like the 'or later' wasn't considered when the scheme was introduced, else it would have been GPL2 and GPL2+ or something right from the start, not the confusing mess it is now. -- Philipp -- "Wir stehen selbst enttäuscht und sehn betroffen / Den Vorhang zu und alle Fragen offen." Bertolt Brecht, Der gute Mensch von Sezuan
Re: [aur-general] ardour-lv2
Excerpts from Ty John (sand_man)'s message of 2010-08-23 13:53:51 +0200: > On Mon, 2010-08-23 at 19:30 +0800, Ray Rashif wrote: > > On 23 August 2010 19:25, Ty John (sand_man) wrote: > > > On Mon, 2010-08-23 at 12:24 +0200, Philipp Überbacher wrote: > > >> Excerpts from Ty John (sand_man)'s message of 2010-08-23 12:13:11 +0200: > > >> > I noticed this package is currently unmaintained. > > >> > Can I adopt this? > > >> > > >> Please do so, if you think it's still needed. > > >> I orphaned it because I lost interest in the program, but afaik in the > > >> meantime there's hardly a difference between this package and the one in > > >> [extra]. > > > > > > I can't believe I didn't see the 'adopt' button. > > > > > > Yeah I wasn't sure if it's the same or not. Does the one in extra > > > support lv2 plugins? It doesn't seem to be specifically compiled in the > > > same way. > > > I'll keep it updated for now. > > > > Yes, extra/ardour is compiled with LV2 support. The only difference > > between the two different binaries would be whatever change is > > influenced by having FFT_ANALYSIS. > > > > > > -- > > GPG/PGP ID: B42DDCAD > > > > I see. > FFT is an audio visualisation tool. I guess this package probably > shouldn't really be called -lv2 then. When I created it, the [extra] package wasn't built with lv2 support (slv2 wasn't in [extra] either). It appeared sensible at the time, because lv2 support was the major difference. -- Philipp -- "Wir stehen selbst enttäuscht und sehn betroffen / Den Vorhang zu und alle Fragen offen." Bertolt Brecht, Der gute Mensch von Sezuan
Re: [aur-general] ardour-lv2
On Mon, 2010-08-23 at 19:30 +0800, Ray Rashif wrote: > On 23 August 2010 19:25, Ty John (sand_man) wrote: > > On Mon, 2010-08-23 at 12:24 +0200, Philipp Überbacher wrote: > >> Excerpts from Ty John (sand_man)'s message of 2010-08-23 12:13:11 +0200: > >> > I noticed this package is currently unmaintained. > >> > Can I adopt this? > >> > >> Please do so, if you think it's still needed. > >> I orphaned it because I lost interest in the program, but afaik in the > >> meantime there's hardly a difference between this package and the one in > >> [extra]. > > > > I can't believe I didn't see the 'adopt' button. > > > > Yeah I wasn't sure if it's the same or not. Does the one in extra > > support lv2 plugins? It doesn't seem to be specifically compiled in the > > same way. > > I'll keep it updated for now. > > Yes, extra/ardour is compiled with LV2 support. The only difference > between the two different binaries would be whatever change is > influenced by having FFT_ANALYSIS. > > > -- > GPG/PGP ID: B42DDCAD > I see. FFT is an audio visualisation tool. I guess this package probably shouldn't really be called -lv2 then.
Re: [aur-general] ardour-lv2
On 23 August 2010 19:25, Ty John (sand_man) wrote: > On Mon, 2010-08-23 at 12:24 +0200, Philipp Überbacher wrote: >> Excerpts from Ty John (sand_man)'s message of 2010-08-23 12:13:11 +0200: >> > I noticed this package is currently unmaintained. >> > Can I adopt this? >> >> Please do so, if you think it's still needed. >> I orphaned it because I lost interest in the program, but afaik in the >> meantime there's hardly a difference between this package and the one in >> [extra]. > > I can't believe I didn't see the 'adopt' button. > > Yeah I wasn't sure if it's the same or not. Does the one in extra > support lv2 plugins? It doesn't seem to be specifically compiled in the > same way. > I'll keep it updated for now. Yes, extra/ardour is compiled with LV2 support. The only difference between the two different binaries would be whatever change is influenced by having FFT_ANALYSIS. -- GPG/PGP ID: B42DDCAD
Re: [aur-general] ardour-lv2
On Mon, 2010-08-23 at 12:24 +0200, Philipp Überbacher wrote: > Excerpts from Ty John (sand_man)'s message of 2010-08-23 12:13:11 +0200: > > I noticed this package is currently unmaintained. > > Can I adopt this? > > Please do so, if you think it's still needed. > I orphaned it because I lost interest in the program, but afaik in the > meantime there's hardly a difference between this package and the one in > [extra]. I can't believe I didn't see the 'adopt' button. Yeah I wasn't sure if it's the same or not. Does the one in extra support lv2 plugins? It doesn't seem to be specifically compiled in the same way. I'll keep it updated for now.
Re: [aur-general] ardour-lv2
On 23 August 2010 18:24, Philipp Überbacher wrote: > Excerpts from Ty John (sand_man)'s message of 2010-08-23 12:13:11 +0200: >> I noticed this package is currently unmaintained. >> Can I adopt this? > > Please do so, if you think it's still needed. > I orphaned it because I lost interest in the program, but afaik in the > meantime there's hardly a difference between this package and the one in > [extra]. I was going to remove it, but I noticed one tiny difference: FFT_ANALYSIS=1 So until extra/ardour is built with that, the AUR package is still valid. -- GPG/PGP ID: B42DDCAD
Re: [aur-general] Licenses, GPL3 only
On 23/08/10 11:03, Philipp wrote: Hi, I just looked up the GPL notation again. Here's the relevant excerpt from the wiki: [...] How would you specify that a program is GPL3 only? Regards, Modify the license file/template to make it clear that it's GPL3 only and then include it in the PKGBUILD as a custom license. It at least avoid all ambiguities if nothing else.
Re: [aur-general] Licenses, GPL3 only
On 23 August 2010 18:03, Philipp wrote: > Hi, > I just looked up the GPL notation again. > Here's the relevant excerpt from the wiki: > > http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_Packaging_Standards > > .. > The (L)GPL has many versions and permutations of those versions. > For (L)GPL software, the convention is: > > * (L)GPL - (L)GPLv2 or any later version > * (L)GPL2 - (L)GPL2 only > * (L)GPL3 - (L)GPL3 or any later version > > > Now besides that this is obviously confusing there's another problem. > How would you specify that a program is GPL3 only? I think what you're trying to say is that you should be allowed to use a license and strictly forbid later versions from having an influence. But I believe that's not how it works. The Linux kernel, IIRC, was made GPL2 only when GPL3 was released. -- GPG/PGP ID: B42DDCAD
Re: [aur-general] Licenses, GPL3 only
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 12:21 PM, Philipp Überbacher wrote: > Excerpts from Ronald van Haren's message of 2010-08-23 12:06:24 +0200: >> On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 12:03 PM, Philipp wrote: >> > Hi, >> > I just looked up the GPL notation again. >> > Here's the relevant excerpt from the wiki: >> > >> > http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_Packaging_Standards >> > >> > .. >> > The (L)GPL has many versions and permutations of those versions. >> > For (L)GPL software, the convention is: >> > >> > * (L)GPL - (L)GPLv2 or any later version >> > * (L)GPL2 - (L)GPL2 only >> > * (L)GPL3 - (L)GPL3 or any later version >> > >> > >> > Now besides that this is obviously confusing there's another problem. >> > How would you specify that a program is GPL3 only? >> > >> >> Since when is GPL4 released? >> >> Ronald > > It isn't afaik, but that doesn't matter. > Both the GPL2 and GPL3 text contain something along the lines of: > ", or (at your option) any later version." > > You have to remove that to say it's GPL2 or GPL3 only. > > Just because GPL4/5/6/.. doesn't exist yet it doesn't mean you can't > say that your program can't be redistributed using those licenses. > > I'm a bit conservative in this case, I rather wait until a license > exists before I say that my program can be distributed using said > license, hence my program is GPL3 only. > -- Well obviously, but GPL4 can be as far as 10 years away, if it will be released at all. Until that time gpl3 or later is equal to gpl3 as there is nothing later. I presume if gpl4 will be released a similar transition can be made like was done after gpl3 was released. Most likely gpl3 will become gpl3 only and... well we can discuss that when the time is there. It doesn't make much sense to do this now, it should have been done when we introduced this scheme (maybe it even was, I don't recall) and now we should just wait for when it needs fixing. You can always file a bug if a package is distributed under the wrong license. Ronald
Re: [aur-general] ardour-lv2
Excerpts from Ty John (sand_man)'s message of 2010-08-23 12:13:11 +0200: > I noticed this package is currently unmaintained. > Can I adopt this? Please do so, if you think it's still needed. I orphaned it because I lost interest in the program, but afaik in the meantime there's hardly a difference between this package and the one in [extra]. -- Philipp -- "Wir stehen selbst enttäuscht und sehn betroffen / Den Vorhang zu und alle Fragen offen." Bertolt Brecht, Der gute Mensch von Sezuan
Re: [aur-general] Licenses, GPL3 only
Excerpts from Ronald van Haren's message of 2010-08-23 12:06:24 +0200: > On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 12:03 PM, Philipp wrote: > > Hi, > > I just looked up the GPL notation again. > > Here's the relevant excerpt from the wiki: > > > > http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_Packaging_Standards > > > > .. > > The (L)GPL has many versions and permutations of those versions. > > For (L)GPL software, the convention is: > > > > * (L)GPL - (L)GPLv2 or any later version > > * (L)GPL2 - (L)GPL2 only > > * (L)GPL3 - (L)GPL3 or any later version > > > > > > Now besides that this is obviously confusing there's another problem. > > How would you specify that a program is GPL3 only? > > > > Since when is GPL4 released? > > Ronald It isn't afaik, but that doesn't matter. Both the GPL2 and GPL3 text contain something along the lines of: ", or (at your option) any later version." You have to remove that to say it's GPL2 or GPL3 only. Just because GPL4/5/6/.. doesn't exist yet it doesn't mean you can't say that your program can't be redistributed using those licenses. I'm a bit conservative in this case, I rather wait until a license exists before I say that my program can be distributed using said license, hence my program is GPL3 only. -- Philipp -- "Wir stehen selbst enttäuscht und sehn betroffen / Den Vorhang zu und alle Fragen offen." Bertolt Brecht, Der gute Mensch von Sezuan
Re: [aur-general] Orphanin request
On 08/23/2010 01:16 PM, Dan Vratil wrote: Hi, please orphan package libmusicbrainz2. I emailed maintainer and he has no interest in maintaining it since he's no longer using Arch. Thanks! Dan URL: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=18081 done -- Ionuț
[aur-general] Orphanin request
Hi, please orphan package libmusicbrainz2. I emailed maintainer and he has no interest in maintaining it since he's no longer using Arch. Thanks! Dan URL: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=18081 -- - Dan Vrátil vra...@progdansoft.com ICQ 249163429 Jabber prog...@jabber.cz Tel. +420 732 326 870 Tento email neobsahuje žádné viry, protože odesílatel nepoužívá Windows. / This email does not contain any viruses because the sender does not use Windows. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [aur-general] ardour-lv2
On Monday 23 August 2010 12:13:11 Ty John (sand_man) wrote: > I noticed this package is currently unmaintained. > Can I adopt this? since it states: Maintainer: None you can adopt :)
[aur-general] openmpi, mpich2: provides 'mpi'
Hi people,
should we define a provides=("mpi") or something like that in openmpi
and mpich2, and eventually also other possible mpi implementations?
That way a number of mpi-dependent packages will be made undependent
of the chosen mpi implementation one wants to install.
domanov
[aur-general] ardour-lv2
I noticed this package is currently unmaintained. Can I adopt this?
Re: [aur-general] Licenses, GPL3 only
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 12:03 PM, Philipp wrote: > Hi, > I just looked up the GPL notation again. > Here's the relevant excerpt from the wiki: > > http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_Packaging_Standards > > .. > The (L)GPL has many versions and permutations of those versions. > For (L)GPL software, the convention is: > > * (L)GPL - (L)GPLv2 or any later version > * (L)GPL2 - (L)GPL2 only > * (L)GPL3 - (L)GPL3 or any later version > > > Now besides that this is obviously confusing there's another problem. > How would you specify that a program is GPL3 only? > Since when is GPL4 released? Ronald
[aur-general] Licenses, GPL3 only
Hi, I just looked up the GPL notation again. Here's the relevant excerpt from the wiki: http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_Packaging_Standards .. The (L)GPL has many versions and permutations of those versions. For (L)GPL software, the convention is: * (L)GPL - (L)GPLv2 or any later version * (L)GPL2 - (L)GPL2 only * (L)GPL3 - (L)GPL3 or any later version Now besides that this is obviously confusing there's another problem. How would you specify that a program is GPL3 only? Regards, -- Philipp -- "Wir stehen selbst enttäuscht und sehn betroffen / Den Vorhang zu und alle Fragen offen." Bertolt Brecht, Der gute Mensch von Sezuan
Re: [aur-general] Quality
One more pick, jackie:
http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=30652
- wrong upstream URL
- i686 only?
- makedepends=('make' 'gcc' 'pkgconfig')
- PREFIX="/usr" twice?
- || return 1
And just to mention one more thing: check the licenses, they are often
wrong. Not in this case, and I forgot to check with the previous ones,
but in general people tend to get them wrong. There is some page on the
wiki that helps you translate the pacman string to human readable. GPL
afaik translates to GPL2, GPL2 to GPL2 only or something..
but I'm never sure about that stuff.
--
Philipp
--
"Wir stehen selbst enttäuscht und sehn betroffen / Den Vorhang zu
und alle Fragen offen." Bertolt Brecht, Der gute Mensch von Sezuan
Re: [aur-general] Quality
Nice that you took on algoscore.
http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=23577
Not sure whether you fixed it or I was
low on coffee when I wrote the comment. Anyway, I noticed a few things:
1) your package is i686 only
2) "|| return 1" is used, which is apparently not really necessary
anymore. You can remove them as you update.
3) I don't know its build system, but if it uses cmake you should use
cmake to configure it correctly (paths) and then just install.
You can use cmake interactively for example with "ccmake .".
Non-interactively the options are prefixed with -D, example from one of
my packages:
cmake . -DCMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX="/usr" \
-DWANT_MP3_ENCODE=ON \
-DUSE_SYSTEM_SLV2_LIBRARY=ON
make DESTDIR="${pkgdir}" install
"namcap" is in general very helpful, not sure it finds anything here though.
I didn't know that one, looks nice, audiomove:
http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=24726
One obvious thing is this line:
makedepends=('autoconf' 'automake>=1.6' 'pkgconfig>=0.9' 'patch')
Those are covered by a package everyone who builds stuff should have
installed. I don't remember the name.
The next question is whether the patch is necessary and/or still
applies, I didn't try, but it's worth checking.
Next one, cdplay:
http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=1750
I see i686 only.
This looks wrong for multiple reasons:
install -Dm 755 cdplay $pkgdir/usr/bin
install -Dm 755 eject $pkgdir/usr/bin
1) Wrong install syntax. From man install:
-D create all leading components of DEST except the last, then copy
SOURCE to DEST
2) The binaries, if they'd be installed correctly, would easily
overwrite other binaries.
I found 'cdplay' on my system, as part of cdtool from extra.
I'm sure 'eject' is also prone to crash with something else, even if I
don't have it on my system.
Well, pacman would complain in those cases, but you should avoid them.
That was my pseudo-random pick for now.
Hope I could show you some of the possible pitfalls.
I'm looking forward to trying audiomove and algoscore.
Regards,
--
Philipp
--
"Wir stehen selbst enttäuscht und sehn betroffen / Den Vorhang zu
und alle Fragen offen." Bertolt Brecht, Der gute Mensch von Sezuan
Re: [aur-general] Quality
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 07:00, Nathan O wrote: > Hey I was wondering if somebody has time to look at my packages and see if > they are of quality :) Some I adopted and got to add my name and email as > maintainer and update the quality of it. The ones with my name and email are > already updated. If you look you may see ndowens04 at gmail dot com or > ndowens04+AUR at gmail dot com I may end up adding this email to the > packages, I created this email address for AUR purposes so my main email > address doesn't get cluttered. Picking another one: http://aur.archlinux.org/packages/statuzer/statuzer/PKGBUILD - remove the '|| return 1' /M -- Magnus Therning (OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4) magnus＠therning．org Jabber: magnus＠therning．org http://therning.org/magnus identi.ca|twitter: magthe
Re: [aur-general] Quality
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 10:20, Ionuț Bîru wrote: [...] > that's one of the new features in pacman 3.4 and wiki should be fixed > http://projects.archlinux.org/pacman.git/tree/NEWS > > - makepkg: > - automatically aborts on any errors during packaging Thanks! Now I would modify the wiki, if I only could. /M -- Magnus Therning (OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4) magnus＠therning．org Jabber: magnus＠therning．org http://therning.org/magnus identi.ca|twitter: magthe
Re: [aur-general] Quality
Here we go http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=27485 is now updated with new version and suggestions On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 4:20 AM, Ionuț Bîru wrote: > On 08/23/2010 12:13 PM, Magnus Therning wrote: > >> On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 09:59, Ionuț Bîru wrote: >> >>> On 08/23/2010 11:50 AM, Nathan O wrote: >>> Random: http://aur.archlinux.org/packages/coffeearc/coffeearc/PKGBUILD >>> for that, add coffeearc.sh to sources array and instead of >>> $startdir/coffeearc.sh use $srcdir/conffeearc.sh and remove || return 1 >>> statements >>> >> >> I was trying to find a reference for the last point (removing '|| return >> 1') >> but couldn't find one. In fact I found the opposite on the wiki[1]. >> >> /M >> >> [1] >> http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_Packaging_Standards#Package_Etiquette >> > > > that's one of the new features in pacman 3.4 and wiki should be fixed > http://projects.archlinux.org/pacman.git/tree/NEWS > > > - makepkg: > - automatically aborts on any errors during packaging > > > -- > Ionuț >
Re: [aur-general] Quality
On 08/23/2010 12:13 PM, Magnus Therning wrote: On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 09:59, Ionuț Bîru wrote: On 08/23/2010 11:50 AM, Nathan O wrote: Random: http://aur.archlinux.org/packages/coffeearc/coffeearc/PKGBUILD for that, add coffeearc.sh to sources array and instead of $startdir/coffeearc.sh use $srcdir/conffeearc.sh and remove || return 1 statements I was trying to find a reference for the last point (removing '|| return 1') but couldn't find one. In fact I found the opposite on the wiki[1]. /M [1] http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_Packaging_Standards#Package_Etiquette that's one of the new features in pacman 3.4 and wiki should be fixed http://projects.archlinux.org/pacman.git/tree/NEWS - makepkg: - automatically aborts on any errors during packaging -- Ionuț
Re: [aur-general] Quality
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 11:13 AM, Magnus Therning wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 09:59, Ionuț Bîru wrote:
>> On 08/23/2010 11:50 AM, Nathan O wrote:
>>>
>>> Random: http://aur.archlinux.org/packages/coffeearc/coffeearc/PKGBUILD
>>>
>>
>> for that, add coffeearc.sh to sources array and instead of
>> $startdir/coffeearc.sh use $srcdir/conffeearc.sh and remove || return 1
>> statements
>
> I was trying to find a reference for the last point (removing '|| return 1')
> but couldn't find one. In fact I found the opposite on the wiki[1].
>
makepkg changelog for pacman 3.4.0
- makepkg:
- automatically aborts on any errors during packaging
- changelogs are now included via the "changelog" variable
- override pkgver, pkgrel and arch in split packages (FS#15955)
- repackaging without a package() function is deprecated
- stricter syntax checking for backup and optdepends entries
- file stripping options are configurable
- New --pkg flag to allow building specific package(s) from
split PKGBUILDs (FS#15956)
- build() function is now optional (FS#15147)
- warn about reference to build root in a package (FS#14751)
- configure source package destination with SRCPKGDEST
- major internal refactoring of handling tests ("[" to "[[")
- contrib/pactree: print reverse dependency tree
Re: [aur-general] Quality
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 09:53, Philipp Überbacher wrote: [...] > This link might help: > http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?O=0&K=ndowens&do_Search=Go&detail=1&C=0&SeB=m&SB=n&SO=a&PP=25 The original email gave me the impression that it wasn't quite that easy. I read it as - Some packages maintained by ndowens are already fine and don't need reviewing. - Some packages that need reviewing aren't marked as being maintained by ndowens yet. I may of course have misunderstood the original email completely, but this is why I asked for a list of packages. /M -- Magnus Therning (OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4) magnus＠therning．org Jabber: magnus＠therning．org http://therning.org/magnus identi.ca|twitter: magthe
Re: [aur-general] Quality
It's ok :) We do sometimes get things turned around in our minds :)
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 4:13 AM, Nathan O wrote:
> I am currently editing the PKGBUILD, I changed bash to sh and removed
> $startdir and their is a new version of it so I am updating to that as well.
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 4:11 AM, Magnus Therning wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 09:50, Nathan O wrote:
>> > Random: http://aur.archlinux.org/packages/coffeearc/coffeearc/PKGBUILD
>>
>> :-)
>>
>> So is your request for someone to look at any of the packages
>> maintained by the user ndowens?
>>
>> Here are my comments on coffeearc:
>>
>> # Contributor: Nathan Owe
>> pkgname=coffeearc
>> pkgver=0_60a
>> pkgrel=1
>> pkgdesc="java zip/other format archiver"
>>
>> -- This description can probably be improved somewhat. Looking at the
>> upstream page it's described like this:
>>
>> "Coffeearc is a simple, extensible GUI archiver that interfaces with
>> file-to-file command-line compression tools or special plugins which use
>> the
>> Coffeearc API."
>>
>> Maybe something like "Multi-format GUI archiver"?
>>
>> arch=('any')
>> url="http://forge.simplana.de/projects/show/coffeearc";
>> license=('gpl')
>> depends=('java-runtime' 'bash')
>>
>> -- is bash really a dependency, or would sh be enough?
>>
>> source=(
>> http://forge.simplana.de/attachments/download/15/Coffeearc_$pkgver.zip)
>>
>> -- this link gives me a 404
>> -- coffeearc.sh should be among the sources
>>
>> noextract=(*.jar)
>> md5sums=('f3eab83a95175a3381679aab081e5d20')
>>
>> build() {
>> cd $srcdir/Coffeearc_$pkgver
>> install -d $pkgdir/usr/share/java/$pkgname $pkgdir/usr/bin || return 1
>> cp -rf libs profiles plugin.mf coffeearc.mf
>> $pkgdir/usr/share/java/$pkgname || return 1
>> install -m755 coffeearc.jar
>> $pkgdir/usr/share/java/$pkgname/coffeearc.jar || return 1
>> install -m755 $startdir/coffeearc.sh $pkgdir/usr/bin/coffeearc
>>
>> }
>>
>> # vim:set ts=2 sw=2 et:
>>
>> /M
>>
>> --
>> Magnus Therning(OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4)
>> magnus＠therning．org Jabber: magnus＠therning．org
>> http://therning.org/magnus identi.ca|twitter: magthe
>>
>
>
Re: [aur-general] Quality
I am currently editing the PKGBUILD, I changed bash to sh and removed
$startdir and their is a new version of it so I am updating to that as well.
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 4:11 AM, Magnus Therning wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 09:50, Nathan O wrote:
> > Random: http://aur.archlinux.org/packages/coffeearc/coffeearc/PKGBUILD
>
> :-)
>
> So is your request for someone to look at any of the packages
> maintained by the user ndowens?
>
> Here are my comments on coffeearc:
>
> # Contributor: Nathan Owe
> pkgname=coffeearc
> pkgver=0_60a
> pkgrel=1
> pkgdesc="java zip/other format archiver"
>
> -- This description can probably be improved somewhat. Looking at the
> upstream page it's described like this:
>
> "Coffeearc is a simple, extensible GUI archiver that interfaces with
> file-to-file command-line compression tools or special plugins which use
> the
> Coffeearc API."
>
> Maybe something like "Multi-format GUI archiver"?
>
> arch=('any')
> url="http://forge.simplana.de/projects/show/coffeearc";
> license=('gpl')
> depends=('java-runtime' 'bash')
>
> -- is bash really a dependency, or would sh be enough?
>
> source=(
> http://forge.simplana.de/attachments/download/15/Coffeearc_$pkgver.zip)
>
> -- this link gives me a 404
> -- coffeearc.sh should be among the sources
>
> noextract=(*.jar)
> md5sums=('f3eab83a95175a3381679aab081e5d20')
>
> build() {
> cd $srcdir/Coffeearc_$pkgver
> install -d $pkgdir/usr/share/java/$pkgname $pkgdir/usr/bin || return 1
> cp -rf libs profiles plugin.mf coffeearc.mf
> $pkgdir/usr/share/java/$pkgname || return 1
> install -m755 coffeearc.jar
> $pkgdir/usr/share/java/$pkgname/coffeearc.jar || return 1
> install -m755 $startdir/coffeearc.sh $pkgdir/usr/bin/coffeearc
>
> }
>
> # vim:set ts=2 sw=2 et:
>
> /M
>
> --
> Magnus Therning(OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4)
> magnus＠therning．org Jabber: magnus＠therning．org
> http://therning.org/magnus identi.ca|twitter: magthe
>
Re: [aur-general] Quality
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 09:59, Ionuț Bîru wrote: > On 08/23/2010 11:50 AM, Nathan O wrote: >> >> Random: http://aur.archlinux.org/packages/coffeearc/coffeearc/PKGBUILD >> > > for that, add coffeearc.sh to sources array and instead of > $startdir/coffeearc.sh use $srcdir/conffeearc.sh and remove || return 1 > statements I was trying to find a reference for the last point (removing '|| return 1') but couldn't find one. In fact I found the opposite on the wiki[1]. /M [1] http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_Packaging_Standards#Package_Etiquette -- Magnus Therning (OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4) magnus＠therning．org Jabber: magnus＠therning．org http://therning.org/magnus identi.ca|twitter: magthe
Re: [aur-general] Quality
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 09:50, Nathan O wrote:
> Random: http://aur.archlinux.org/packages/coffeearc/coffeearc/PKGBUILD
:-)
So is your request for someone to look at any of the packages
maintained by the user ndowens?
Here are my comments on coffeearc:
# Contributor: Nathan Owe
pkgname=coffeearc
pkgver=0_60a
pkgrel=1
pkgdesc="java zip/other format archiver"
-- This description can probably be improved somewhat. Looking at the
upstream page it's described like this:
"Coffeearc is a simple, extensible GUI archiver that interfaces with
file-to-file command-line compression tools or special plugins which use the
Coffeearc API."
Maybe something like "Multi-format GUI archiver"?
arch=('any')
url="http://forge.simplana.de/projects/show/coffeearc";
license=('gpl')
depends=('java-runtime' 'bash')
-- is bash really a dependency, or would sh be enough?
source=(http://forge.simplana.de/attachments/download/15/Coffeearc_$pkgver.zip)
-- this link gives me a 404
-- coffeearc.sh should be among the sources
noextract=(*.jar)
md5sums=('f3eab83a95175a3381679aab081e5d20')
build() {
cd $srcdir/Coffeearc_$pkgver
install -d $pkgdir/usr/share/java/$pkgname $pkgdir/usr/bin || return 1
cp -rf libs profiles plugin.mf coffeearc.mf
$pkgdir/usr/share/java/$pkgname || return 1
install -m755 coffeearc.jar
$pkgdir/usr/share/java/$pkgname/coffeearc.jar || return 1
install -m755 $startdir/coffeearc.sh $pkgdir/usr/bin/coffeearc
}
# vim:set ts=2 sw=2 et:
/M
--
Magnus Therning (OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4)
magnus＠therning．org Jabber: magnus＠therning．org
http://therning.org/magnus identi.ca|twitter: magthe
Re: [aur-general] Quality
Thanks for showing the startdir spot. I edited it some time ago, but guess I over looked that when I was working on it. On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 3:59 AM, Ionuț Bîru wrote: > On 08/23/2010 11:50 AM, Nathan O wrote: > >> Random: http://aur.archlinux.org/packages/coffeearc/coffeearc/PKGBUILD >> >> > for that, add coffeearc.sh to sources array and instead of > $startdir/coffeearc.sh use $srcdir/conffeearc.sh and remove || return 1 > statements > > > -- > Ionuț >
Re: [aur-general] Quality
Some packages you may see has the previous maintainer listed and not mine yet. I got to update those sometime, I started on it but don't have any time left to do it, currently attempting to help somebody else with their package. On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 3:53 AM, Philipp Überbacher wrote: > Excerpts from Nathan O's message of 2010-08-23 10:50:11 +0200: > > Random: http://aur.archlinux.org/packages/coffeearc/coffeearc/PKGBUILD > > > > On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 3:47 AM, Magnus Therning >wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 09:44, Nathan O wrote: > > > > I am not meaning a specific package, it could be a random package(s) > > > > > > Huh? > > > > > > I quote your email here: > > > > > > Hey I was wondering if somebody has time to look at my packages and > see if > > > they are of quality :) > > > > > > So, what packages should I choose randomly from? > > > > > > /M > > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 3:42 AM, Magnus Therning < > mag...@therning.org > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > >> On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 07:00, Nathan O > wrote: > > > >>> Hey I was wondering if somebody has time to look at my packages and > see > > > if > > > >>> they are of quality :) Some I adopted and got to add my name and > email > > > as > > > >>> maintainer and update the quality of it. The ones with my name and > > > email > > > >>> are already updated. If you look you may see ndowens04 at gmail dot > com > > > or > > > >>> ndowens04+AUR at gmail dot com I may end up adding this email to > the > > > >>> packages, I created this email address for AUR purposes so my main > > > email > > > >>> address doesn't get cluttered. > > > >> > > > >> I'm not sure I understand what you wrote above, but wouldn't it > > > >> improve your chances of help if you actually listed the packages in > > > >> question instead? > > > >> > > > >> /M > > > >> > > > >> -- > > > >> Magnus Therning(OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4) > > > >> magnus＠therning．org Jabber: magnus＠therning．org > > > >> http://therning.org/magnus identi.ca|twitter: magthe > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Magnus Therning(OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4) > > > magnus＠therning．org Jabber: magnus＠therning．org > > > http://therning.org/magnus identi.ca|twitter: magthe > > > > > > > > This link might help: > > http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?O=0&K=ndowens&do_Search=Go&detail=1&C=0&SeB=m&SB=n&SO=a&PP=25 > -- > Philipp > > -- > "Wir stehen selbst enttäuscht und sehn betroffen / Den Vorhang zu > und alle Fragen offen." Bertolt Brecht, Der gute Mensch von Sezuan > >
Re: [aur-general] Quality
On 08/23/2010 11:50 AM, Nathan O wrote: Random: http://aur.archlinux.org/packages/coffeearc/coffeearc/PKGBUILD for that, add coffeearc.sh to sources array and instead of $startdir/coffeearc.sh use $srcdir/conffeearc.sh and remove || return 1 statements -- Ionuț
Re: [aur-general] Quality
Excerpts from Nathan O's message of 2010-08-23 10:50:11 +0200: > Random: http://aur.archlinux.org/packages/coffeearc/coffeearc/PKGBUILD > > On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 3:47 AM, Magnus Therning wrote: > > > On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 09:44, Nathan O wrote: > > > I am not meaning a specific package, it could be a random package(s) > > > > Huh? > > > > I quote your email here: > > > > Hey I was wondering if somebody has time to look at my packages and see if > > they are of quality :) > > > > So, what packages should I choose randomly from? > > > > /M > > > > > On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 3:42 AM, Magnus Therning > >wrote: > > > > > >> On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 07:00, Nathan O wrote: > > >>> Hey I was wondering if somebody has time to look at my packages and see > > if > > >>> they are of quality :) Some I adopted and got to add my name and email > > as > > >>> maintainer and update the quality of it. The ones with my name and > > email > > >>> are already updated. If you look you may see ndowens04 at gmail dot com > > or > > >>> ndowens04+AUR at gmail dot com I may end up adding this email to the > > >>> packages, I created this email address for AUR purposes so my main > > email > > >>> address doesn't get cluttered. > > >> > > >> I'm not sure I understand what you wrote above, but wouldn't it > > >> improve your chances of help if you actually listed the packages in > > >> question instead? > > >> > > >> /M > > >> > > >> -- > > >> Magnus Therning(OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4) > > >> magnus＠therning．org Jabber: magnus＠therning．org > > >> http://therning.org/magnus identi.ca|twitter: magthe > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Magnus Therning(OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4) > > magnus＠therning．org Jabber: magnus＠therning．org > > http://therning.org/magnus identi.ca|twitter: magthe > > This link might help: http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?O=0&K=ndowens&do_Search=Go&detail=1&C=0&SeB=m&SB=n&SO=a&PP=25 -- Philipp -- "Wir stehen selbst enttäuscht und sehn betroffen / Den Vorhang zu und alle Fragen offen." Bertolt Brecht, Der gute Mensch von Sezuan
Re: [aur-general] Quality
Random: http://aur.archlinux.org/packages/coffeearc/coffeearc/PKGBUILD On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 3:47 AM, Magnus Therning wrote: > On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 09:44, Nathan O wrote: > > I am not meaning a specific package, it could be a random package(s) > > Huh? > > I quote your email here: > > Hey I was wondering if somebody has time to look at my packages and see if > they are of quality :) > > So, what packages should I choose randomly from? > > /M > > > On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 3:42 AM, Magnus Therning >wrote: > > > >> On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 07:00, Nathan O wrote: > >>> Hey I was wondering if somebody has time to look at my packages and see > if > >>> they are of quality :) Some I adopted and got to add my name and email > as > >>> maintainer and update the quality of it. The ones with my name and > email > >>> are already updated. If you look you may see ndowens04 at gmail dot com > or > >>> ndowens04+AUR at gmail dot com I may end up adding this email to the > >>> packages, I created this email address for AUR purposes so my main > email > >>> address doesn't get cluttered. > >> > >> I'm not sure I understand what you wrote above, but wouldn't it > >> improve your chances of help if you actually listed the packages in > >> question instead? > >> > >> /M > >> > >> -- > >> Magnus Therning(OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4) > >> magnus＠therning．org Jabber: magnus＠therning．org > >> http://therning.org/magnus identi.ca|twitter: magthe > >> > > > > > > -- > Magnus Therning(OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4) > magnus＠therning．org Jabber: magnus＠therning．org > http://therning.org/magnus identi.ca|twitter: magthe >
Re: [aur-general] Quality
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 09:44, Nathan O wrote: > I am not meaning a specific package, it could be a random package(s) Huh? I quote your email here: Hey I was wondering if somebody has time to look at my packages and see if they are of quality :) So, what packages should I choose randomly from? /M > On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 3:42 AM, Magnus Therning wrote: > >> On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 07:00, Nathan O wrote: >>> Hey I was wondering if somebody has time to look at my packages and see if >>> they are of quality :) Some I adopted and got to add my name and email as >>> maintainer and update the quality of it. The ones with my name and email >>> are already updated. If you look you may see ndowens04 at gmail dot com or >>> ndowens04+AUR at gmail dot com I may end up adding this email to the >>> packages, I created this email address for AUR purposes so my main email >>> address doesn't get cluttered. >> >> I'm not sure I understand what you wrote above, but wouldn't it >> improve your chances of help if you actually listed the packages in >> question instead? >> >> /M >> >> -- >> Magnus Therning (OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4) >> magnus＠therning．org Jabber: magnus＠therning．org >> http://therning.org/magnus identi.ca|twitter: magthe >> > -- Magnus Therning (OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4) magnus＠therning．org Jabber: magnus＠therning．org http://therning.org/magnus identi.ca|twitter: magthe
Re: [aur-general] Quality
I am not meaning a specific package, it could be a random package(s) On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 3:42 AM, Magnus Therning wrote: > On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 07:00, Nathan O wrote: > > Hey I was wondering if somebody has time to look at my packages and see > if > > they are of quality :) Some I adopted and got to add my name and email as > > maintainer and update the quality of it. The ones with my name and email > are > > already updated. If you look you may see ndowens04 at gmail dot com or > > ndowens04+AUR at gmail dot com I may end up adding this email to the > > packages, I created this email address for AUR purposes so my main email > > address doesn't get cluttered. > > I'm not sure I understand what you wrote above, but wouldn't it > improve your chances of help if you actually listed the packages in > question instead? > > /M > > -- > Magnus Therning(OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4) > magnus＠therning．org Jabber: magnus＠therning．org > http://therning.org/magnus identi.ca|twitter: magthe >
Re: [aur-general] Quality
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 07:00, Nathan O wrote: > Hey I was wondering if somebody has time to look at my packages and see if > they are of quality :) Some I adopted and got to add my name and email as > maintainer and update the quality of it. The ones with my name and email are > already updated. If you look you may see ndowens04 at gmail dot com or > ndowens04+AUR at gmail dot com I may end up adding this email to the > packages, I created this email address for AUR purposes so my main email > address doesn't get cluttered. I'm not sure I understand what you wrote above, but wouldn't it improve your chances of help if you actually listed the packages in question instead? /M -- Magnus Therning (OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4) magnus＠therning．org Jabber: magnus＠therning．org http://therning.org/magnus identi.ca|twitter: magthe
