Re: [aur-general] bes
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 12:30 PM, Nathan O ndowens@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 5:59 AM, Nathan Wayde kum...@konnichi.com wrote:
On 25/08/10 10:34, Nathan O wrote:
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 4:07 AM, Nathan Waydekum...@konnichi.com
wrote:
[...]
I'll try again tomorrow, though don't know how much luck I will have then
I took a closer look and noticed the sed line used single quote as opposed
to double so ignore my comment about that, in either case it was unneeded as
the default for ${exec_prefix} is already ${prefix}
here is a working build function to get you going. it now runs but you'll
till need to take care of the group business, you'll see the error when you
start the daemon. other than the fact that it runs i don't know if it works
as i don't even know what BES is.
build() {
install -m755 -d ${pkgdir}/etc/rc.d
cd ${srcdir}/${pkgname}-${pkgver}/ppt
patch -Np0 -i ${srcdir}/sslclient.patch
patch -Np0 -i ${srcdir}/sslserver.patch
cd ${srcdir}/${pkgname}-${pkgver}
export FC=gfortran F77=gfortran
sed -ie 's|/init.d||g' besd.in
sed -ie 's|${prefix}/var|${localstatedir}|g' server/besctl.in
./configure --prefix=/usr --sysconfdir=/etc --localstatedir=/var
make || return 1
make DESTDIR=${pkgdir} install
install -m755 -D ${pkgdir}/usr/bin/besd ${pkgdir}/etc/rc.d/besd
}
I am trying it, I have never had this much of an issue with a package
I have orphaned the package, nothing seems to work. Somebody will probably
have a better chance at it. It seems to be the way that the software is
written and I don't know programming languages such as C to understand
exactly what is causing it.
Thanks
[aur-general] cpige
I have cpige-cli and cpige-gui, they are from the same sources. I think I
figured out how to put them together instead of seperate packages, can
somebody tell me if the following is correct:
# Contributor: Nathan Owe ndowens.aur at gmail dot com
pkgname=cpige
pkgver=1.5
pkgrel=2
pkgdesc=The Frontend version of cpige
arch=('i686')
url=http://ed.zehome.com/?page=cpige-en;
license=('GPL')
optdepends=('gtk2: GUI support')
source=(http://ed.zehome.com/cpige/cpige-${pkgver}.tar.gz${pkgname}.desktop)
md5sums=('ad5b8f70d254a261cfb3fda586d66448'
'42845d95fa350d1a8025109e0c65b2de')
build() {
##GUI Version##
cd ${srcdir}/cpige-${pkgver}/gui/
./configure --prefix=/usr
make
install -d ${pkgdir}/usr/{bin,share/{${pkgname},applications,pixmaps}}
install *.{c,h,png,po,ico} ${pkgdir}/usr/share/$pkgname/
install -Dm755 cpigeGUI ${pkgdir}/usr/bin/cpigegui
install -Dm644 cpigeGUI.png ${pkgdir}/usr/share/pixmaps/cpigeGUI.png
install -Dm644 ${srcdir}/${pkgname}.desktop
${pkgdir}/usr/share/applications/${pkgname}.desktop
##CLI Version##
cd ${srcdir}/cpige-${pkgver}
make
install -d ${pkgdir}/{etc,usr/{bin,share/{cpige,man/man1}}}
install -Dm644 cpige.conf.example ${pkgdir}/etc/cpige.conf
install -Dm644 cpige.1.gz ${pkgdir}/usr/share/man/man1/
install -Dm755 cpige ${pkgdir}/usr/bin/cpige
}
If it is correct, I would like cpige-cli
http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=28087 and cpige-gui
http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=28088 deleted.
Thanks
Re: [aur-general] algoscore
Excerpts from Nathan O's message of 2010-08-26 02:52:33 +0200: On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 1:26 PM, Philipp Überbacher hollun...@lavabit.comwrote: Excerpts from Christopher Brannon's message of 2010-08-25 20:12:38 +0200: Philipp Überbacher hollun...@lavabit.com writes: As it happens, this article about algoscore says that it does require either -O2 or -O3 as CFLAGS: http://www.linuxjournal.com/content/algoscore-music-numbers Sorry, but this doesn't seem plausible. I did get some useful output from valgrind. The invalid reads and writes are happening in src/nasal/hash.c, at line 132, in the resize function. The malloc call in that function doesn't seem to be allocating enough memory. The author is aligning his pointers, and the malloc call doesn't account for the padding. I added a fudge factor to malloc's size argument. The patch is here: http://pastebin.ca/1925235. Unfortunately, I can't do much to test this program, but I can say that it no longer crashes with a backtrace. -- Chris The strange thing here is that it didn't crash when it was built from ROX-filer, which I believe just executes AppRun, a simple shell script to compile algoscore. One thing that causes it to crash here is 'csound_test.as' in the examples folder. The midi_test.as example works fine though. -- Philipp -- Wir stehen selbst enttäuscht und sehn betroffen / Den Vorhang zu und alle Fragen offen. Bertolt Brecht, Der gute Mensch von Sezuan Does anybody want to take over algoscore http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=23577 ? I can't get it to work no matter what I try, or delete the package. Thanks What I do when there's an upstream bug is reporting it. Use the bugtracker or some other means to get in touch with the author. -- 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
On Mon 23 Aug 2010 12:03 +0200, 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? Here's my proposed scheme: GPL = Any GPL license GPL1 = GPL1 only GPL2 = GPL2 only GPL3 = GPL3 only If you want to use 2 and 3, just list them both in the licenses array. Future proof.
Re: [aur-general] Licenses, GPL3 only
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 12:40 PM, Loui Chang louipc@gmail.com wrote: On Mon 23 Aug 2010 12:03 +0200, 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? Here's my proposed scheme: GPL = Any GPL license GPL1 = GPL1 only GPL2 = GPL2 only GPL3 = GPL3 only If you want to use 2 and 3, just list them both in the licenses array. Future proof. I've never seen an applications under the 'any GPL license, it's always GPL2 or higher either way, it is never future proof. What for some reason people start to switch licenses to GPL3 or higher if/when GPL4 is removed...there can always be something. Ronald
Re: [aur-general] Licenses, GPL3 only
On Thu 26 Aug 2010 12:48 +0200, Ronald van Haren wrote: On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 12:40 PM, Loui Chang louipc@gmail.com wrote: On Mon 23 Aug 2010 12:03 +0200, 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? Here's my proposed scheme: GPL = Any GPL license GPL1 = GPL1 only GPL2 = GPL2 only GPL3 = GPL3 only If you want to use 2 and 3, just list them both in the licenses array. Future proof. I've never seen an applications under the 'any GPL license, it's always GPL2 or higher It exists as part of the license at any rate. either way, it is never future proof. What for some reason people start to switch licenses to GPL3 or higher if/when GPL4 is removed...there can always be something. I'm very confused. Can you rephrase that?
[aur-general] unknown-horizons-svn now unknown-horizons-git
Hi all, the Unknown Horizons project moved from svn to git for version control. A new package has been uploaded for git: http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=40274 The old svn package (http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=24438) is obsolete and should be deleted from the AUR. Best regards Nihathrael
Re: [aur-general] Licenses, GPL3 only
Excerpts from Roberto Alsina's message of 2010-08-23 22:08:46 +0200: 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) As you put it yourself, any program that says GPL2 is GPL2 only, you need to explicitly say or later. People who follow the fsf recommendation closely use the text from http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-howto.html that includes or later by default. For that reason I guess that there's more GPL2 only than GPL2 or later software out there. -- 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
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 12:50 PM, Loui Chang louipc@gmail.com wrote: On Thu 26 Aug 2010 12:48 +0200, Ronald van Haren wrote: On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 12:40 PM, Loui Chang louipc@gmail.com wrote: On Mon 23 Aug 2010 12:03 +0200, 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? Here's my proposed scheme: GPL = Any GPL license GPL1 = GPL1 only GPL2 = GPL2 only GPL3 = GPL3 only If you want to use 2 and 3, just list them both in the licenses array. Future proof. I've never seen an applications under the 'any GPL license, it's always GPL2 or higher It exists as part of the license at any rate. either way, it is never future proof. What for some reason people start to switch licenses to GPL3 or higher if/when GPL4 is removed...there can always be something. I'm very confused. Can you rephrase that? sure... I'm doing five things at once so I didn't think much about what I was saying.. either way, most licenses say 'licensed under the GNU General Public License version 2 or, at your option any later version'. In our current naming scheme this is what we call 'GPL', in your scheme I'm not sure how you would call it. Which was my first point. My second point was that we don't know what the future will bring. Will new applications being licensed under GPL2 or later, GPL3 or later, GPL4, GPL4 or later... there are lots of options. There are lots of possibilities and I'm wondering if it is at all feasible to create a naming scheme which will fit all. The way we currently have it seems to fit all current GPL packages. IMO GPL3 is still GPL3 only as there is no later GPL license. Correct me if I'm wrong but I think all GPL3 only packages in our repos have just GPL3 in the license array? The GPL3 text says the following: + 14. Revised Versions of this License. The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions of the GNU General Public License from time to time. Such new versions will be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to address new problems or concerns. Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program specifies that a certain numbered version of the GNU General Public License or any later version applies to it, you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that numbered version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of the GNU General Public License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation. If the Program specifies that a proxy can decide which future versions of the GNU General Public License can be used, that proxy's public statement of acceptance of a version permanently authorizes you to choose that version for the Program. Later license versions may give you additional or different permissions. However, no additional obligations are imposed on any author or copyright holder as a result of your choosing to follow a later version. + so as long as the program does not specify 'any later version' or states just the version to be used it is fine if I understand it correctly. Ronald
Re: [aur-general] Licenses, GPL3 only
On Thursday 26 August 2010 08:12:23 Ronald van Haren wrote: My second point was that we don't know what the future will bring. Will new applications being licensed under GPL2 or later, GPL3 or later, GPL4, GPL4 or later... there are lots of options. There are lots of possibilities and I'm wondering if it is at all feasible to create a naming scheme which will fit all. Sure: GPL2 GPL2+ GPL3 GPL3+ etc. For convenience, you may want to make GPL the equivalent of GPL2+
Re: [aur-general] Licenses, GPL3 only
Excerpts from Loui Chang's message of 2010-08-26 12:40:56 +0200:
On Mon 23 Aug 2010 12:03 +0200, 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?
Here's my proposed scheme:
GPL = Any GPL license
GPL1 = GPL1 only
GPL2 = GPL2 only
GPL3 = GPL3 only
If you want to use 2 and 3, just list them both in the licenses array.
Future proof.
It would turn ugly if there was an inflation of GPL licenses though.
license=('GPL1' 'GPL2' 'GPL3' 'GPL4' 'GPL5' 'GPL6' 'GPL7' 'GPL8')
Besides that, I think it's future proof.
One issue though is that the meaning of:
('GPL2' 'GPL3')
isn't the same as:
'GPL2 or later'
It only is practically the same because there's nothing beyond GPL3 yet.
--
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] unknown-horizons-svn now unknown-horizons-git
Le jeudi 26 août 2010 13:04:10, Thomas Kinnen a écrit : Hi all, the Unknown Horizons project moved from svn to git for version control. A new package has been uploaded for git: http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=40274 The old svn package (http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=24438) is obsolete and should be deleted from the AUR. Best regards Nihathrael Done :-)
Re: [aur-general] Licenses, GPL3 only
Excerpts from Roberto Alsina's message of 2010-08-26 13:16:05 +0200: On Thursday 26 August 2010 08:12:23 Ronald van Haren wrote: My second point was that we don't know what the future will bring. Will new applications being licensed under GPL2 or later, GPL3 or later, GPL4, GPL4 or later... there are lots of options. There are lots of possibilities and I'm wondering if it is at all feasible to create a naming scheme which will fit all. Sure: GPL2 GPL2+ GPL3 GPL3+ etc. That's what I'd be in favor of. I'm not sure the '+' is the best way, because it has other meanings than 'any later' as well. For convenience, you may want to make GPL the equivalent of GPL2+ I think that's not convenient but confusing. -- 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
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 1:25 PM, Philipp Überbacher hollun...@lavabit.com wrote: Excerpts from Roberto Alsina's message of 2010-08-26 13:16:05 +0200: On Thursday 26 August 2010 08:12:23 Ronald van Haren wrote: My second point was that we don't know what the future will bring. Will new applications being licensed under GPL2 or later, GPL3 or later, GPL4, GPL4 or later... there are lots of options. There are lots of possibilities and I'm wondering if it is at all feasible to create a naming scheme which will fit all. Sure: GPL2 GPL2+ GPL3 GPL3+ etc. That's what I'd be in favor of. I'm not sure the '+' is the best way, because it has other meanings than 'any later' as well. I missed the bloody obvious :lol: For convenience, you may want to make GPL the equivalent of GPL2+ I think that's not convenient but confusing. -- Even with setting GPL to GPL2+, it is a lot of work. I don't even want to think about the amount of work it creates not doing so... Not sure if it is really worth the effort at this point. Ronald
Re: [aur-general] Licenses, GPL3 only
On Thursday 26 August 2010 08:25:06 Philipp Überbacher wrote: Excerpts from Roberto Alsina's message of 2010-08-26 13:16:05 +0200: On Thursday 26 August 2010 08:12:23 Ronald van Haren wrote: My second point was that we don't know what the future will bring. Will new applications being licensed under GPL2 or later, GPL3 or later, GPL4, GPL4 or later... there are lots of options. There are lots of possibilities and I'm wondering if it is at all feasible to create a naming scheme which will fit all. Sure: GPL2 GPL2+ GPL3 GPL3+ etc. That's what I'd be in favor of. I'm not sure the '+' is the best way, because it has other meanings than 'any later' as well. I have not heard of something called GPL2+ before. What is it? For convenience, you may want to make GPL the equivalent of GPL2+ I think that's not convenient but confusing. Or you may not, of course ;-)
Re: [aur-general] TU process
On Mon 23 Aug 2010 23:55 -0500, Brad Fanella wrote: On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 11:42 PM, Nathan O ndowens@gmail.com wrote: Just wondering what steps do I need to take to apply for TU? 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. :-) Also read the Trusted User Bylaws http://aur.archlinux.org/trusted-user/TUbylaws.html
Re: [aur-general] Licenses, GPL3 only
Excerpts from Ronald van Haren's message of 2010-08-26 13:29:09 +0200: On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 1:25 PM, Philipp Überbacher hollun...@lavabit.com wrote: Excerpts from Roberto Alsina's message of 2010-08-26 13:16:05 +0200: On Thursday 26 August 2010 08:12:23 Ronald van Haren wrote: My second point was that we don't know what the future will bring. Will new applications being licensed under GPL2 or later, GPL3 or later, GPL4, GPL4 or later... there are lots of options. There are lots of possibilities and I'm wondering if it is at all feasible to create a naming scheme which will fit all. Sure: GPL2 GPL2+ GPL3 GPL3+ etc. That's what I'd be in favor of. I'm not sure the '+' is the best way, because it has other meanings than 'any later' as well. I missed the bloody obvious :lol: For convenience, you may want to make GPL the equivalent of GPL2+ I think that's not convenient but confusing. -- Even with setting GPL to GPL2+, it is a lot of work. I don't even want to think about the amount of work it creates not doing so... Not sure if it is really worth the effort at this point. Ronald That's the trouble. The current naming scheme isn't future proof. Changing it would be a lot of work as it affects every single package and pacman and helpers. I guess we could extend the current scheme in a future proof manner, but overall it would be inconsistent. Keep the current meaning: GPL = GPL2 or later GPL2 = GPL2 only GPL3 = GPL3 or later Add something for the GPL3 only case: GPL3o = GPL3 only - find some nicer way Basically start a new, consistent scheme with GPL4: GPL4 = GPL4 only GPL4+ = GPL4 or later .. If they come up with something fancier than a plain 'or later' we might be in trouble again. Alternatively: Keep the current meaning: GPL = GPL2 or later GPL2 = GPL2 only GPL3 = GPL3 or later Add something for the GPL3 only case: GPL3o = GPL3 only - find some nicer way Keep using the GPL3 way: GPL4 = GPL4 or later GPL4o = GPL4 only It's all a bunch of hacks to avoid a transition from the current scheme to a new one. Maybe a solution would be to find a way to ease said transition. -- 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 Roberto Alsina's message of 2010-08-26 13:31:15 +0200: On Thursday 26 August 2010 08:25:06 Philipp Überbacher wrote: Excerpts from Roberto Alsina's message of 2010-08-26 13:16:05 +0200: On Thursday 26 August 2010 08:12:23 Ronald van Haren wrote: My second point was that we don't know what the future will bring. Will new applications being licensed under GPL2 or later, GPL3 or later, GPL4, GPL4 or later... there are lots of options. There are lots of possibilities and I'm wondering if it is at all feasible to create a naming scheme which will fit all. Sure: GPL2 GPL2+ GPL3 GPL3+ etc. That's what I'd be in favor of. I'm not sure the '+' is the best way, because it has other meanings than 'any later' as well. I have not heard of something called GPL2+ before. What is it? Exactly my point, there's no official abbreviation of 'GPL2 or later' that I know of, and the '+' has the meaning of addition in mathematics and is often used to mean 'better', which isn't the same as 'later'. For convenience, you may want to make GPL the equivalent of GPL2+ I think that's not convenient but confusing. Or you may not, of course ;-) If we change the scheme we need one that's future proof and more intuitive than the current one, otherwise switching doesn't make sense at all. It's probably not easy to come up with the perfect scheme. Something like GPL = 'GPL2 or later' is imho not intuitive. -- 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
On 26 August 2010 19:16, Roberto Alsina rals...@netmanagers.com.ar wrote:
On Thursday 26 August 2010 08:12:23 Ronald van Haren wrote:
My second point was that we don't know what the future will bring.
Will new applications being licensed under GPL2 or later, GPL3 or
later, GPL4, GPL4 or later... there are lots of options. There are
lots of possibilities and I'm wondering if it is at all feasible to
create a naming scheme which will fit all.
Sure:
GPL2
GPL2+
GPL3
GPL3+
etc.
For convenience, you may want to make GPL the equivalent of GPL2+
Here's what is currently being done:
ln -s GPL2 GPL
So in fact, we don't even have the text of the only version. Neither
does the FSF.
There is no proper example, template or draft for a GPLn-only
license. For eg. the kernel has this in its COPYING:
quote
NOTE! This copyright does *not* cover user programs that use kernel
services by normal system calls - this is merely considered normal use
of the kernel, and does *not* fall under the heading of derived work.
Also note that the GPL below is copyrighted by the Free Software
Foundation, but the instance of code that it refers to (the Linux
kernel) is copyrighted by me and others who actually wrote it.
Also note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as the kernel
is concerned is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not
v2.2 or v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated.
Linus Torvalds
/quote
That is the only difference between that license text and the one in
/usr/share/common, i.e it is a special case, a GPL2 license with an
exception clause. Otherwise, both have exactly 2 occurences of any
later version.
== GPL2 ==
If we want to honour cases like that, we would have to encourage the
inclusion of the license. So, our kernel should mention:
license=('custom:GPL2')
And include /usr/share/licenses/kernel26/COPYING. All cases of
custom should naturally imply that there is a license text to check
out.
All other normal GPL software should have:
license=('GPL')
Which needs no intervention.
== GPL3 ==
Now, because the texts of the GPL2 and GPL3 are different, we cannot,
for eg. symlink anything to GPL3. But in the above manner, software
like the kernel need to have:
license=('custom:GPL3')
And include /usr/share/licenses/foobar/COPYING.
While the rest of the GPL3 software can just have:
license=('GPL3')
== TL;DR ==
Basically, we just standardise the use of:
license=('custom:GPLn')
For software with GPL exception texts, and include the license. Only
the kernel (and mysql? [1]) package needs to be changed to conform to
this; nothing else needs to be done. Very future proof, IMO.
[1] http://www.downloadsquad.com/2007/01/04/mysqls-license-is-now-gpl-2-only/
--
GPG/PGP ID: B42DDCAD
Re: [aur-general] ardour-lv2
On 26 August 2010 10:05, Loui Chang louipc@gmail.com wrote: On Mon 23 Aug 2010 19:13 +0800, Ray Rashif wrote: On 23 August 2010 18:24, Philipp Überbacher hollun...@lavabit.com 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. Not really. That's what ABS is for. That's not really the point of the AUR. You're right. Something so simple like that just skipped my mind at that moment. Good it's been brought up, else I would've forgotten. My bad. -- GPG/PGP ID: B42DDCAD
Re: [aur-general] Licenses, GPL3 only
Excerpts from Ray Rashif's message of 2010-08-26 14:23:22 +0200:
On 26 August 2010 19:16, Roberto Alsina rals...@netmanagers.com.ar wrote:
On Thursday 26 August 2010 08:12:23 Ronald van Haren wrote:
My second point was that we don't know what the future will bring.
Will new applications being licensed under GPL2 or later, GPL3 or
later, GPL4, GPL4 or later... there are lots of options. There are
lots of possibilities and I'm wondering if it is at all feasible to
create a naming scheme which will fit all.
Sure:
GPL2
GPL2+
GPL3
GPL3+
etc.
For convenience, you may want to make GPL the equivalent of GPL2+
Here's what is currently being done:
ln -s GPL2 GPL
So in fact, we don't even have the text of the only version. Neither
does the FSF.
Because there is only one version of the GPL2 and GPL3 respectively, but
a program can be licensed with multiple GPL versions. Now what the
license array exists for, imho, is to inform the user which licensing
terms are available for the program.
There is no proper example, template or draft for a GPLn-only
license. For eg. the kernel has this in its COPYING:
quote
NOTE! This copyright does *not* cover user programs that use kernel
services by normal system calls - this is merely considered normal use
of the kernel, and does *not* fall under the heading of derived work.
Also note that the GPL below is copyrighted by the Free Software
Foundation, but the instance of code that it refers to (the Linux
kernel) is copyrighted by me and others who actually wrote it.
Also note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as the kernel
is concerned is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not
v2.2 or v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated.
Linus Torvalds
/quote
That is the only difference between that license text and the one in
/usr/share/common, i.e it is a special case, a GPL2 license with an
exception clause. Otherwise, both have exactly 2 occurences of any
later version.
No, there's no exception clause to the GPL at all, it merely states,
very clearly, that this software is only available under the terms of
the GPL2. It wouldn't need to be that explicit, it could just say GPL2
and it would mean the same thing, but apparently Linus intended to make
very clear that it isn't available under the terms of any other GPL
license. It's really nothing special.
== GPL2 ==
If we want to honour cases like that, we would have to encourage the
inclusion of the license. So, our kernel should mention:
license=('custom:GPL2')
And include /usr/share/licenses/kernel26/COPYING. All cases of
custom should naturally imply that there is a license text to check
out.
Nope, just GPL2 as for any other GPL2 software is fine.
Read the license, http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html#SEC3 9.
A
9. The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new
versions of the General Public License from time to time. Such new
versions will be similar in spirit to the present version, but may
differ in detail to address new problems or concerns.
Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program
specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and any
later version, you have the option of following the terms and
conditions either of that version or of any later version published by
the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version
number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the
Free Software Foundation.
The one sentence implies to me that GPL2 only doesn't exist, but it
does, I asked at #fsf. It's just not encouraged.
All other normal GPL software should have:
license=('GPL')
Which needs no intervention.
If the author says just 'GPL' then it can be any GPL version, as you can
read above. That a case arch hasn't covered either.
== GPL3 ==
Now, because the texts of the GPL2 and GPL3 are different, we cannot,
for eg. symlink anything to GPL3. But in the above manner, software
like the kernel need to have:
license=('custom:GPL3')
And include /usr/share/licenses/foobar/COPYING.
While the rest of the GPL3 software can just have:
license=('GPL3')
GPL3 or GPL3 later is the same license text, it also only depends on
whether the author specifies the or later. It should also be easily
visible for Arch users, something that is currently not the case. Arch
currently doesn't cover the cases where the author just says GPL3.
== TL;DR ==
Basically, we just standardise the use of:
license=('custom:GPLn')
For software with GPL exception texts, and include the license. Only
the kernel (and mysql? [1]) package needs to be changed to conform to
this; nothing else needs to be done. Very future proof, IMO.
[1] http://www.downloadsquad.com/2007/01/04/mysqls-license-is-now-gpl-2-only/
Again, it's no exception, it's the use of this one license and this one
license only.
--
Philipp
--
Re: [aur-general] TU Application / Looking for sponsor
On Wednesday 25 August 2010 17:26:18 Philipp Überbacher wrote: How about boost-build? It has 93 votes. But luabind is the first thing I encountered that needs it. I've only adopted boost-build and luabind very recently as they're dependencies of allacrost and were both orphaned. I'm not familiar with the packages yet and I don't know why they have so many votes when it seems like (almost) nothing depends on them.
Re: [aur-general] Help with a perl package needed
Excerpts from Justin Davis's message of 2010-08-25 05:07:26 +0200:
Hey Philip,
Sorry for the delay I have looked at your AUR PKGBUILD and it looks very well
done. I can see you read the wiki page. Filling all those pkgdeps by hand is
very impressive. I have some minor suggestions and a plug for a module I made
that may help you.
One discrepancy I noticed is that I think perl-anyevent should be = 5,
meaning the package needs at least version 5. You might also consider having
a provides line like: provides=('perl-audio-nama'). This is the more or less
standard way of naming perl _module_ packages. Since your package provides
both a module and application, naming it 'nama' isn't bad at all, but the
provides would allow people to use the standard notation if they want to
depend on the module. Not really important but just for covering your bases.
Hi Justin,
I followed your suggestions and updated the PKGBUILDs accordingly.
nama-git: http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=40135
nama: http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=40133
I don't think anything uses nama as a module, so I rather stick with the
current name.
Please tell me if you have any more suggestions. I know I didn't use the
new build() and package() functions. I'm simply not familiar with those
yet, and I don't think they offer any significant benefit.
The plug is that I have made a module for generating Archlinux package for
perl modules on the fly. It is not perfect though and sometimes you have to
tweak the PKGBUILD. My module is called CPANPLUS::Dist::Arch, available as
perl-cpanplus-dist-arch on the AUR. It comes with a program called cpan2aur
that can generate PKGBUILDs, upload them to the AUR, or check if a new
version of a module is available automatically.
To keep a long story short, if you want help maintaining your AUR package and
keeping it up to date you might find it useful. I use it for my AUR perl
packages. But to keep the PKGBUILD perfect like you made it you would have to
use a PKGBUILD template file. If you want to try it here are instructions:
Create a directory called 'nama'. I have such dirs under my ~/aur directory.
Copy this PKGBUILD template file to a file called PKGBUILD.tt:
# CPAN Name : Audio-Nama
# Maintainer : [% packager %]
# Generator : CPANPLUS::Dist::Arch [% version %]
pkgname='nama'
pkgver='[% pkgver %]'
pkgrel='[% pkgrel %]'
pkgdesc='Tk/CLI frontend for ecasound'
arch=('[% arch %]')
license=('GPL2')
options=('!emptydirs')
depends=([% depends %])
provides=('perl-audio-nama')
optdepends=('perl-audio-ecasound' 'perl-tk')
url='http://freeshell.de/~bolangi/cgi1/nama.cgi/00home.html'
source=('[% source %]')
md5sums=('[% md5sums %]')
build() {
DIST_DIR=${srcdir}/[% distdir %]
export PERL_MM_USE_DEFAULT=1 PERL5LIB= \
PERL_AUTOINSTALL=--skipdeps\
PERL_MM_OPT=INSTALLDIRS=vendor DESTDIR='$pkgdir' \
PERL_MB_OPT=--installdirs vendor --destdir '$pkgdir' \
MODULEBUILDRC=/dev/null
{ cd $DIST_DIR
perl Makefile.PL
make
[% IF skiptest %]#[% END %]make test
make install;
} || return 1;
find $pkgdir -name .packlist -o -name perllocal.pod -delete
}
'cd' back into the parent directory and type: 'cpan2aur nama'. This will
build a new source package file, generating a PKGBUILD from your template.
Then type 'cpan2aur --check nama' to automatically check if a new version of
Audio-Name from CPAN is available and automatically upload the new version of
the source package. Or you can do things like 'cpan2aur --upload nama' to
generate/upload a source package from that directory's PKGBUILD.tt
I hope that helps you. I don't have steady internet lately so I might not
reply instantly if you need me but thanks for your AUR package!
-Justin
I did use it already, but I did so sloppily, just to get the job done.
perl-audio-ecasound: http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=40136
Thanks,
--
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
On 26 August 2010 21:23, Philipp Überbacher hollun...@lavabit.com wrote: Again, it's no exception, it's the use of this one license and this one license only. You're right, I totally misused the term exception [1]. Let's forget about semantics. As I understood your initial concern, we have no standard in place to make it clear which version of the GPL a software package is under. Is that correct? What I proposed only makes the distinction between a GPL and a GPLn-only license by the use of the word custom in the license array, and a license file in the appropriate place (because there is added text). Nothing more, nothing less. This would definitely be clear, because obviously, from a visual perspective, Licenses: GPL3 and Licenses: custom:GPL3 are clearly not the same. Loui's proposal is good, but as Ronald mentioned, we don't have anything to do with GPL1 anymore. Moreover, even if we didn't count GPL1, there is no way to link GPL to GPL2 _and_ GPL3 on the filesystem. We could also go with Licenses: GPL3-only, or a derivative of that, as long as it does not require change in a lot of our buildscripts (which would be the case for the + proposal and I don't think this is strong enough of a case to motivate that). [1] http://www.mysql.com/about/legal/licensing/foss-exception/ -- GPG/PGP ID: B42DDCAD
Re: [aur-general] TU Application / Looking for sponsor
Excerpts from Jakob Gruber's message of 2010-08-26 16:35:40 +0200:
On Wednesday 25 August 2010 17:26:18 Philipp Überbacher wrote:
How about boost-build? It has 93 votes. But luabind is the first thing I
encountered that needs it.
I've only adopted boost-build and luabind very recently as they're
dependencies of allacrost and were both orphaned. I'm not familiar with the
packages yet and I don't know why they have so many votes when it seems like
(almost) nothing depends on them.
Ok, all clear. Allacrost looks like a promising game :)
Here's what namcap told me:
allacrost W: Dependency included but already satisfied ('libgl')
allacrost W: Dependency included and not needed ('sdl_net')
--
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 2010-08-26 18:45:36 +0200:
On 26 August 2010 21:23, Philipp Überbacher hollun...@lavabit.com wrote:
Again, it's no exception, it's the use of this one license and this one
license only.
You're right, I totally misused the term exception [1]. Let's forget
about semantics. As I understood your initial concern, we have no
standard in place to make it clear which version of the GPL a
software package is under. Is that correct?
We have a standard in place to distinguish between different versions of
the GPL, for v2 and v3. Out standard also allows to distinguish between
v2 only and v2 or later.
What I proposed only makes the distinction between a GPL and a
GPLn-only license by the use of the word custom in the license
array, and a license file in the appropriate place (because there is
added text). Nothing more, nothing less. This would definitely be
clear, because obviously, from a visual perspective, Licenses:
GPL3 and Licenses: custom:GPL3 are clearly not the same.
It would be nice to distinguish between GPLvN only and GPLvN or later
for any N. The question is which way is optimal.
Loui's proposal is good, but as Ronald mentioned, we don't have
anything to do with GPL1 anymore.
Not exactly true. Perl and pretty much any Perl package is Artistic
license and GPLv1 or later. Out Perl package says Artistic and GPLv2 or
later.
Moreover, even if we didn't count
GPL1, there is no way to link GPL to GPL2 _and_ GPL3 on the
filesystem.
I'm not sure what you mean by that. Not counting LGPL and the likes
there are 3 GPL license texts, v1, v2 and v3. I think no matter whether
the program is distributed as 'v2 or later' or 'v2 only' it would be
sufficient to link it with the v2 text.
We could also go with Licenses: GPL3-only, or a derivative of that,
as long as it does not require change in a lot of our buildscripts
(which would be the case for the + proposal and I don't think this
is strong enough of a case to motivate that).
I understand that this is the main problem, a change to a new system
would either be another hack or require a change in basically every
package.
Maybe we can:
1) come up with a scheme that is intuitive and future proof, that we can
all agree on.
2) come up with a way that allows a slow transition to the new system,
so that it doesn't require extra effort and rebuilds.
[1] http://www.mysql.com/about/legal/licensing/foss-exception/
So mysql is distributed as GPL v2 only, but they added an exception to
make it compatible with any of the license in the list. In this case I'd
say GPLv2 only + custom or just custom (I'm not sure about the details),
but [extra] says: License=('GPL').
--
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
On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 13:18:30 +0200
Philipp Überbacher hollun...@lavabit.com wrote:
Besides that, I think it's future proof.
One issue though is that the meaning of:
('GPL2' 'GPL3')
isn't the same as:
'GPL2 or later'
It only is practically the same because there's nothing beyond GPL3
yet.
Just out of curiosity...
Supposed, there is a GPL4 around at some time in the future.
Now, if I receive some software under the terms of GPL2 or later,
would it be in my right, to redistribute said software under GPL3
only as opposed to GPL3 or later?
Re: [aur-general] Licenses, GPL3 only
Philipp Überbacher wrote: It would be nice to distinguish between GPLvN only and GPLvN or later for any N. The question is which way is optimal. GPL2 GPL2-only GPL3 GPL3-only etc Wouldn't that both be clear and avoid sweeping changes as most things are licensed under the standard this version or later license? Also, if it's a pita to change now, it will only be a bigger pita later when it becomes an actual problem.
Re: [aur-general] Licenses, GPL3 only
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 8:00 PM, Xyne x...@archlinux.ca wrote: Philipp Überbacher wrote: It would be nice to distinguish between GPLvN only and GPLvN or later for any N. The question is which way is optimal. GPL2 GPL2-only GPL3 GPL3-only etc Wouldn't that both be clear and avoid sweeping changes as most things are licensed under the standard this version or later license? clear yes, avoid sweeping changes no. most packages are currently gpl2 or later, hence called 'GPL'. These need to be changes to GPL2. packages which currently are GPL2 need to be converted to GPL2-only. You can of course keep both GPL2 and GPL for gpl2 or later for now. Ronald
Re: [aur-general] Licenses, GPL3 only
Excerpts from Ronald van Haren's message of 2010-08-26 20:10:00 +0200: On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 8:00 PM, Xyne x...@archlinux.ca wrote: Philipp Überbacher wrote: It would be nice to distinguish between GPLvN only and GPLvN or later for any N. The question is which way is optimal. GPL2 GPL2-only GPL3 GPL3-only etc Wouldn't that both be clear and avoid sweeping changes as most things are licensed under the standard this version or later license? clear yes, avoid sweeping changes no. most packages are currently gpl2 or later, hence called 'GPL'. These need to be changes to GPL2. packages which currently are GPL2 need to be converted to GPL2-only. You can of course keep both GPL2 and GPL for gpl2 or later for now. Ronald I also wonder about the GPLv1/any case. It's nothing that should be used anymore, but technically all the perl stuff would need 'GPLv1 or later' which is the same as 'GPL any'. -- 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
On Thursday 26 August 2010 15:38:43 Philipp Überbacher wrote: Excerpts from Ronald van Haren's message of 2010-08-26 20:10:00 +0200: On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 8:00 PM, Xyne x...@archlinux.ca wrote: Philipp Überbacher wrote: It would be nice to distinguish between GPLvN only and GPLvN or later for any N. The question is which way is optimal. GPL2 GPL2-only GPL3 GPL3-only etc Wouldn't that both be clear and avoid sweeping changes as most things are licensed under the standard this version or later license? clear yes, avoid sweeping changes no. most packages are currently gpl2 or later, hence called 'GPL'. These need to be changes to GPL2. packages which currently are GPL2 need to be converted to GPL2-only. You can of course keep both GPL2 and GPL for gpl2 or later for now. Ronald I also wonder about the GPLv1/any case. It's nothing that should be used anymore, but technically all the perl stuff would need 'GPLv1 or later' which is the same as 'GPL any'. Just in case: if a package is licensed under GPLvX and later and Arch says it's GPLvY (with Y = X) and doesn't say anything about or later, that's not a problem, for Arch, really, it will be using one of the allowed licenses in any case. It may be a problem if it ends combining it with another program which requires one of the later GPLs, though.
Re: [aur-general] Licenses, GPL3 only
Excerpts from Alexander Duscheleit's message of 2010-08-26 19:57:35 +0200:
On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 13:18:30 +0200
Philipp Überbacher hollun...@lavabit.com wrote:
Besides that, I think it's future proof.
One issue though is that the meaning of:
('GPL2' 'GPL3')
isn't the same as:
'GPL2 or later'
It only is practically the same because there's nothing beyond GPL3
yet.
Just out of curiosity...
Supposed, there is a GPL4 around at some time in the future.
Now, if I receive some software under the terms of GPL2 or later,
would it be in my right, to redistribute said software under GPL3
only as opposed to GPL3 or later?
That's a good question, and my guess is 'no', because you're restricting
the ones you give the program to. But technically you also limit the
choice by not allowing GPLv2 anymore, so I really don't know. IANAL :)
--
Philipp
--
Wir stehen selbst enttäuscht und sehn betroffen / Den Vorhang zu
und alle Fragen offen. Bertolt Brecht, Der gute Mensch von Sezuan
[aur-general] voting period: Brad Fanella
This message marks the beginning of the voting period for Brad Fanella's application to become a trusted user. You may read his application via this link: http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2010-August/010049.html. Good luck, Brad. -- Chris pgp6AIhqTgMKh.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [aur-general] voting period: Brad Fanella
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 2:16 PM, Christopher Brannon cmbranno...@gmail.com wrote: This message marks the beginning of the voting period for Brad Fanella's application to become a trusted user. You may read his application via this link: http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2010-August/010049.html. Good luck, Brad. -- Chris I like his attitude after asking him a couple of questions. +1 from me.
[aur-general] Packages deletion request and PKGBUILD check
Please delete packages grub2-efi-x64-bzr http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=39901 and grub2-efi-x86-bzr http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=39902 . The packages have been merged and replaced by grub2-efi-bzr http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=40290 (see PKGBUILD for more info). Can someone please check the PKGBUILD http://aur.archlinux.org/packages/grub2-efi-bzr/grub2-efi-bzr/PKGBUILD for any apparent errors. Thanks in advance. Regards. Keshav
Re: [aur-general] cpige
On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 02:56:48 -0500
Nathan O ndowens@gmail.com wrote:
I have cpige-cli and cpige-gui, they are from the same sources. I
think I figured out how to put them together instead of seperate
packages, can somebody tell me if the following is correct:
# Contributor: Nathan Owe ndowens.aur at gmail dot com
pkgname=cpige
pkgver=1.5
pkgrel=2
pkgdesc=The Frontend version of cpige
arch=('i686')
url=http://ed.zehome.com/?page=cpige-en;
license=('GPL')
optdepends=('gtk2: GUI support')
This doesn't look like it would work. Have you tired building it in a
clean chroot?
You probably need at least makedepends=('gtk2') to build a GUI
against gtk.
Also you might want to split of a package function and even think about
building a split package, although this prohibits AUR distribution for
now.
Jinks
[aur-general] delete package
I would ask to delete the package because the site as the source link are offline. -- corvolino ~ Linux User #459152 Jabber: corvol...@jabber.org Blog - http://corvolinopunk.wordpress.com Archlinux-br Developer Team
Re: [aur-general] delete package
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 4:42 AM, corvolino corvol...@archlinux.com.br wrote: I would ask to delete the package because the site as the source link are offline. Which package would that be?
Re: [aur-general] Licenses, GPL3 only
On Thu 26 Aug 2010 13:12 +0200, Ronald van Haren wrote: On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 12:50 PM, Loui Chang louipc@gmail.com wrote: On Thu 26 Aug 2010 12:48 +0200, Ronald van Haren wrote: On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 12:40 PM, Loui Chang louipc@gmail.com wrote: On Mon 23 Aug 2010 12:03 +0200, 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? Here's my proposed scheme: GPL = Any GPL license GPL1 = GPL1 only GPL2 = GPL2 only GPL3 = GPL3 only If you want to use 2 and 3, just list them both in the licenses array. Future proof. I've never seen an applications under the 'any GPL license, it's always GPL2 or higher It exists as part of the license at any rate. either way, it is never future proof. What for some reason people start to switch licenses to GPL3 or higher if/when GPL4 is removed...there can always be something. I'm very confused. Can you rephrase that? sure... I'm doing five things at once so I didn't think much about what I was saying.. either way, most licenses say 'licensed under the GNU General Public License version 2 or, at your option any later version'. In our current naming scheme this is what we call 'GPL', in your scheme I'm not sure how you would call it. Which was my first point. My second point was that we don't know what the future will bring. Will new applications being licensed under GPL2 or later, GPL3 or later, GPL4, GPL4 or later... there are lots of options. There are lots of possibilities and I'm wondering if it is at all feasible to create a naming scheme which will fit all. The way we currently have it seems to fit all current GPL packages. IMO GPL3 is still GPL3 only as there is no later GPL license. Correct me if I'm wrong but I think all GPL3 only packages in our repos have just GPL3 in the license array? What really concerns us as distributors is what makes things clear and simple. We can always use and distribute under the first available license. Really there is no need for us to worry about 'any later version' of a license. That's only something that app developers might want to pay attention to if they're linking, forking or borrowing code. In that case they bloody well read the documentation and not blame Arch for incomplete (but still correct) license information.
[aur-general] avr-libc + gcc-avr updated PKGBUILDs
Hello, Thanks in advance! - avr-libc (require a gcc-avr 4.5.1 + patch below) * update to 1.7.0 * Fix license: BSD - custom * Remove all || return 1 + Patch for PKGBUILD against trunk here: http://gist.github.com/552752 - gcc-avr * Add a patch to support more architectures, can compile fine avr-libc-1.7.0. Patch from [#1] plus add syntax fixes (missing commas). Anyway there is a bug in gcc-4.5 with AVR, current avr-libc 1.6.8 neither compile without it. [#2] [#1] http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-04/msg01210.html [#2] http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45261 + Patch for PKGBUILD against trunk here: http://gist.github.com/552763 -- Gerardo Exequiel Pozzi \cos^2\alpha + \sin^2\alpha = 1
Re: [aur-general] cpige
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 4:34 PM, Alexander Duscheleit ji...@archlinux.uswrote:
On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 02:56:48 -0500
Nathan O ndowens@gmail.com wrote:
I have cpige-cli and cpige-gui, they are from the same sources. I
think I figured out how to put them together instead of seperate
packages, can somebody tell me if the following is correct:
# Contributor: Nathan Owe ndowens.aur at gmail dot com
pkgname=cpige
pkgver=1.5
pkgrel=2
pkgdesc=The Frontend version of cpige
arch=('i686')
url=http://ed.zehome.com/?page=cpige-en;
license=('GPL')
optdepends=('gtk2: GUI support')
This doesn't look like it would work. Have you tired building it in a
clean chroot?
You probably need at least makedepends=('gtk2') to build a GUI
against gtk.
Also you might want to split of a package function and even think about
building a split package, although this prohibits AUR distribution for
now.
Jinks
I wasn't sure if I could do this or not. I figured since it was from the
same source code, that I might be able to do something similar.
[aur-general] cmake build
I have encountered having the issues with software that uses cmake as it's build system. Usually I get the warnings stating that there is an Insecure RPATH and Package contains reference to $srcdir. I believe I figured out how to fix the RPATH issue, because a previous package had Rpath issues and I used sed to add a setting(can't remember what the setting is called at this second). The issue I have now is the Reference to $srcdir, for the current package and future reference, how do you fix it? Thanks
Re: [aur-general] cmake build
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 12:03 AM, Nathan O ndowens@gmail.com wrote: I have encountered having the issues with software that uses cmake as it's build system. Usually I get the warnings stating that there is an Insecure RPATH and Package contains reference to $srcdir. I believe I figured out how to fix the RPATH issue, because a previous package had Rpath issues and I used sed to add a setting(can't remember what the setting is called at this second). The issue I have now is the Reference to $srcdir, for the current package and future reference, how do you fix it? Thanks Forgot to mention, it only states that when it is creating the package but not with namcap.
