[aur-general] oDesk created archlinux packages!
My package, godesk (http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=37635), is no longer needed. Apparently the archlinux community (maybe only me) pestered them enough for them to decide to make official packages! (http://www.odesk.com/community/node/234) This new edition was apparently created at the expense of the static version. At the bottom of the page it says "oDesk supports the following Linux versions: Ubuntu 8.10+, Debian 4+, Fedora 9+ and OpenSuse 11+." It does not say archlinx... but I guess it is a start. -- Stephen Weinberg
Re: [aur-general] cmake build
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 1:27 AM, Nathan O wrote: > > > On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 1:24 AM, Magnus Therning wrote: > >> On 27/08/10 06:03, Nathan O 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? >> >> The fix for the $srcdir issue depends on the nature of the issue. Not >> very >> helpful, I know. Have a look in the ml archives for a discussion of this >> issue, it took place not so long ago and was started by me. There >> you'll find >> enough information to be able to do the same check that makepkg does so >> you >> can find *exactly* why it complains. >> >> If I find the time to take a closer look myself, is there a PKGBUILD >> available >> already that I can use? Where? >> >> /M >> >> -- >> Magnus Therning(OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4) >> magnus＠therning．org Jabber: magnus＠therning．org >> http://therning.org/magnus identi.ca|twitter: magthe >> >> If you would like to, http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=22993 I > will check out the archives. Thanks > P.S. I searched Google last night and somebody stated to do something like > "grep -R $srcdir $pkgdir" > I used Google to search the ML with your email and name and subjects(not all in one sentence) $srcdir, references, and cmake, though I couldn't find it
Re: [aur-general] cmake build
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 2:19 AM, Nathan O wrote: > > > On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 1:27 AM, Nathan O wrote: > >> >> >> On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 1:24 AM, Magnus Therning wrote: >> >>> On 27/08/10 06:03, Nathan O 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? >>> >>> The fix for the $srcdir issue depends on the nature of the issue. Not >>> very >>> helpful, I know. Have a look in the ml archives for a discussion of this >>> issue, it took place not so long ago and was started by me. There >>> you'll find >>> enough information to be able to do the same check that makepkg does so >>> you >>> can find *exactly* why it complains. >>> >>> If I find the time to take a closer look myself, is there a PKGBUILD >>> available >>> already that I can use? Where? >>> >>> /M >>> >>> -- >>> Magnus Therning(OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4) >>> magnus＠therning．org Jabber: magnus＠therning．org >>> http://therning.org/magnus identi.ca|twitter: magthe >>> >>> If you would like to, http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=22993 I >> will check out the archives. Thanks >> P.S. I searched Google last night and somebody stated to do something like >> "grep -R $srcdir $pkgdir" >> > > I used Google to search the ML with your email and name and subjects(not > all in one sentence) $srcdir, references, and cmake, though I couldn't find > it > Though I just found in another mailing-list about the issue. The ML stated to do grep -R "(pwd)/src" pkg/ in the directory where the PKGBUILD is at. I did that and grep returned nothing. So maybe my package is alright?
Re: [aur-general] cmake build
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 07:27, Nathan O wrote: > On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 1:24 AM, Magnus Therning wrote: >> On 27/08/10 06:03, Nathan O 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? >> >> The fix for the $srcdir issue depends on the nature of the issue. Not very >> helpful, I know. Have a look in the ml archives for a discussion of this >> issue, it took place not so long ago and was started by me. There you'll >> find enough information to be able to do the same check that makepkg does >> so you can find *exactly* why it complains. >> >> If I find the time to take a closer look myself, is there a PKGBUILD >> available already that I can use? Where? >> > If you would like to, http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=22993 I will > check out the archives. Thanks I had a quick look. I don't get any complaints about RPATH, what did you run to see that? (I should probably mention that I'm on an x86_64 system, not sure if that makes a difference though.) > P.S. I searched Google last night and somebody stated to do something like > "grep -R $srcdir $pkgdir" Yes, that's the one. The only result I get is from fqterm.bin. It looks like it contains references to the location of the source files used during the build. My uninformed guess is that it's related to some event mechanism (close by are strings like "httpDone", "windowmgr.currentChanged"...). I don't program much in C++, and I haven't used QT since about KDE 0.2 time, but my guess would be that these references to $srcdir are harmless. /M -- Magnus Therning (OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4) magnus＠therning．org Jabber: magnus＠therning．org http://therning.org/magnus identi.ca|twitter: magthe
Re: [aur-general] cmake build
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 2:28 AM, Magnus Therning wrote: > On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 07:27, Nathan O wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 1:24 AM, Magnus Therning >wrote: > >> On 27/08/10 06:03, Nathan O 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? > >> > >> The fix for the $srcdir issue depends on the nature of the issue. Not > very > >> helpful, I know. Have a look in the ml archives for a discussion of > this > >> issue, it took place not so long ago and was started by me. There > you'll > >> find enough information to be able to do the same check that makepkg > does > >> so you can find *exactly* why it complains. > >> > >> If I find the time to take a closer look myself, is there a PKGBUILD > >> available already that I can use? Where? > >> > > If you would like to, http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=22993 I > will > > check out the archives. Thanks > > I had a quick look. I don't get any complaints about RPATH, what did you > run > to see that? > > (I should probably mention that I'm on an x86_64 system, not sure if that > makes a difference though.) > > > P.S. I searched Google last night and somebody stated to do something > like > > "grep -R $srcdir $pkgdir" > > Yes, that's the one. The only result I get is from fqterm.bin. It looks > like > it contains references to the location of the source files used during the > build. My uninformed guess is that it's related to some event mechanism > (close by are strings like "httpDone", "windowmgr.currentChanged"...). I > don't program much in C++, and I haven't used QT since about KDE 0.2 time, > but > my guess would be that these references to $srcdir are harmless. > > /M > > -- > Magnus Therning(OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4) > magnus＠therning．org Jabber: magnus＠therning．org > http://therning.org/magnus identi.ca|twitter: magthe > That is weird that you got grep to tell you which file(s) it was, when mine pointed nothing out to me.
Re: [aur-general] oDesk created archlinux packages!
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 08:15, Stephen Weinberg wrote: > My package, godesk (http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=37635), is > no longer needed. Apparently the archlinux community (maybe only me) > pestered them enough for them to decide to make official packages! > (http://www.odesk.com/community/node/234) This new edition was > apparently created at the expense of the static version. > > At the bottom of the page it says "oDesk supports the following Linux > versions: Ubuntu 8.10+, Debian 4+, Fedora 9+ and OpenSuse 11+." It does > not say archlinx... but I guess it is a start. Of course I couldn't use any of the AUR package managers (bauerbill, paktahn, yaurt, etc) to get their package :-( Could you pester them a little bit more to get them to maintain a source package on AUR? ;-) /M -- Magnus Therning (OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4) magnus＠therning．org Jabber: magnus＠therning．org http://therning.org/magnus identi.ca|twitter: magthe
Re: [aur-general] oDesk created archlinux packages!
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 2:30 AM, Magnus Therning wrote: > On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 08:15, Stephen Weinberg > wrote: > > My package, godesk (http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=37635), is > > no longer needed. Apparently the archlinux community (maybe only me) > > pestered them enough for them to decide to make official packages! > > (http://www.odesk.com/community/node/234) This new edition was > > apparently created at the expense of the static version. > > > > At the bottom of the page it says "oDesk supports the following Linux > > versions: Ubuntu 8.10+, Debian 4+, Fedora 9+ and OpenSuse 11+." It does > > not say archlinx... but I guess it is a start. > > Of course I couldn't use any of the AUR package managers (bauerbill, > paktahn, yaurt, etc) to get their package :-( > > Could you pester them a little bit more to get them to maintain a > source package on AUR? ;-) > > /M > > -- > Magnus Therning(OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4) > magnus＠therning．org Jabber: magnus＠therning．org > http://therning.org/magnus identi.ca|twitter: magthe > Pester them too much then they may not concider doing anything to help us :)
Re: [aur-general] oDesk created archlinux packages!
On 27/08/10 08:30, Magnus Therning wrote: On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 08:15, Stephen Weinberg wrote: My package, godesk (http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=37635), is no longer needed. Apparently the archlinux community (maybe only me) pestered them enough for them to decide to make official packages! (http://www.odesk.com/community/node/234) This new edition was apparently created at the expense of the static version. At the bottom of the page it says "oDesk supports the following Linux versions: Ubuntu 8.10+, Debian 4+, Fedora 9+ and OpenSuse 11+." It does not say archlinx... but I guess it is a start. Of course I couldn't use any of the AUR package managers (bauerbill, paktahn, yaurt, etc) to get their package :-( Could you pester them a little bit more to get them to maintain a source package on AUR? ;-) /M no need, check that link: http://www.odesk.com/community/node/234 again near the bottom. it's inside a zip file but meh.
Re: [aur-general] cmake build
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 08:30, Nathan O wrote: > On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 2:28 AM, Magnus Therning wrote: [...] > That is weird that you got grep to tell you which file(s) it was, when mine > pointed nothing out to me. Indeed. This is what I see: % grep -R $(pwd)/src pkg Binary file pkg/usr/bin/fqterm.bin matches I'm not sure if the dollar-sign was lost in your earlier email, but it is required to get the expected result. /M -- Magnus Therning (OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4) magnus＠therning．org Jabber: magnus＠therning．org http://therning.org/magnus identi.ca|twitter: magthe
Re: [aur-general] oDesk created archlinux packages!
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 08:36, Nathan Wayde wrote: > On 27/08/10 08:30, Magnus Therning wrote: >> >> On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 08:15, Stephen Weinberg >> wrote: >>> >>> My package, godesk (http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=37635), is >>> no longer needed. Apparently the archlinux community (maybe only me) >>> pestered them enough for them to decide to make official packages! >>> (http://www.odesk.com/community/node/234) This new edition was >>> apparently created at the expense of the static version. >>> >>> At the bottom of the page it says "oDesk supports the following Linux >>> versions: Ubuntu 8.10+, Debian 4+, Fedora 9+ and OpenSuse 11+." It does >>> not say archlinx... but I guess it is a start. >> >> Of course I couldn't use any of the AUR package managers (bauerbill, >> paktahn, yaurt, etc) to get their package :-( >> >> Could you pester them a little bit more to get them to maintain a >> source package on AUR? ;-) >> >> /M >> > > no need, check that link: http://www.odesk.com/community/node/234 again near > the bottom. > > it's inside a zip file but meh. My concern is more about using tools to automatically get updates. I see no way of using any established tools to do that :-( /M -- Magnus Therning (OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4) magnus＠therning．org Jabber: magnus＠therning．org http://therning.org/magnus identi.ca|twitter: magthe
Re: [aur-general] cmake build
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 2:41 AM, Magnus Therning wrote: > On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 08:30, Nathan O wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 2:28 AM, Magnus Therning >wrote: > [...] > > That is weird that you got grep to tell you which file(s) it was, when > mine > > pointed nothing out to me. > > Indeed. This is what I see: > > % grep -R $(pwd)/src pkg > Binary file pkg/usr/bin/fqterm.bin matches > > I'm not sure if the dollar-sign was lost in your earlier email, but it is > required to get the expected result. > > /M > > -- > Magnus Therning(OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4) > magnus＠therning．org Jabber: magnus＠therning．org > http://therning.org/magnus identi.ca|twitter: magthe > Tried it exactly how you typed it as well, and nothing again
Re: [aur-general] oDesk created archlinux packages!
On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 08:42:51 +0100 Magnus Therning wrote: > On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 08:36, Nathan Wayde > wrote: > > On 27/08/10 08:30, Magnus Therning wrote: > >> > >> On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 08:15, Stephen Weinberg > >> wrote: > >>> > >>> My package, godesk > >>> (http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=37635), is no longer > >>> needed. Apparently the archlinux community (maybe only me) > >>> pestered them enough for them to decide to make official > >>> packages! (http://www.odesk.com/community/node/234) This new > >>> edition was apparently created at the expense of the static > >>> version. > >>> > >>> At the bottom of the page it says "oDesk supports the following > >>> Linux versions: Ubuntu 8.10+, Debian 4+, Fedora 9+ and OpenSuse > >>> 11+." It does not say archlinx... but I guess it is a start. > >> > >> Of course I couldn't use any of the AUR package managers > >> (bauerbill, paktahn, yaurt, etc) to get their package :-( > >> > >> Could you pester them a little bit more to get them to maintain a > >> source package on AUR? ;-) > >> > >> /M > >> > > > > no need, check that link: http://www.odesk.com/community/node/234 > > again near the bottom. > > > > it's inside a zip file but meh. > > My concern is more about using tools to automatically get updates. I > see no way of using any established tools to do that :-( > > /M > Should I modify my package to install or repackage their package?
Re: [aur-general] cmake build
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 08:44, Nathan O wrote: > On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 2:41 AM, Magnus Therning wrote: > >> On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 08:30, Nathan O wrote: >> > On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 2:28 AM, Magnus Therning > >wrote: >> [...] >> > That is weird that you got grep to tell you which file(s) it was, when >> > mine pointed nothing out to me. >> >> Indeed. This is what I see: >> >> % grep -R $(pwd)/src pkg >> Binary file pkg/usr/bin/fqterm.bin matches >> >> I'm not sure if the dollar-sign was lost in your earlier email, but it is >> required to get the expected result. >> > Tried it exactly how you typed it as well, and nothing again Fascinating! Computers, eh? ;-) Anyway, if you are happy with my cheerful hand-waving of an explanation in the earlier email then just disregard the warning from pacman for now. Otherwise seek out someone who's more knowledgeable about QT and ask them. That's pretty much the only advice I can give. /M -- Magnus Therning (OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4) magnus＠therning．org Jabber: magnus＠therning．org http://therning.org/magnus identi.ca|twitter: magthe
Re: [aur-general] cmake build
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 2:50 AM, Magnus Therning wrote: > On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 08:44, Nathan O wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 2:41 AM, Magnus Therning >wrote: > > > >> On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 08:30, Nathan O wrote: > >> > On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 2:28 AM, Magnus Therning >> >wrote: > >> [...] > >> > That is weird that you got grep to tell you which file(s) it was, when > >> > mine pointed nothing out to me. > >> > >> Indeed. This is what I see: > >> > >> % grep -R $(pwd)/src pkg > >> Binary file pkg/usr/bin/fqterm.bin matches > >> > >> I'm not sure if the dollar-sign was lost in your earlier email, but it > is > >> required to get the expected result. > >> > > Tried it exactly how you typed it as well, and nothing again > > Fascinating! Computers, eh? ;-) > > Anyway, if you are happy with my cheerful hand-waving of an explanation in > the > earlier email then just disregard the warning from pacman for now. > Otherwise > seek out someone who's more knowledgeable about QT and ask them. That's > pretty much the only advice I can give. > > /M > > -- > Magnus Therning(OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4) > magnus＠therning．org Jabber: magnus＠therning．org > http://therning.org/magnus identi.ca|twitter: magthe > I uploaded the version that gave the warning before, since I can't reproduce what result you got.
Re: [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 (based on tpowa's suggestion) and replaced by grub2-efi-bzr http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=40290 (see PKGBUILD for more info). Please delete these pkgs also - grub2-efi-x64 http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=39904 and grub2-efi-x86 http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=39905 The packages have been merged and replaced by grub2-efi http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=40300 . Can someone please check the PKGBUILDs http://aur.archlinux.org/packages/grub2-efi-bzr/grub2-efi-bzr/PKGBUILD and http://aur.archlinux.org/packages/grub2-efi/grub2-efi/PKGBUILD for any apparent errors. Thanks in advance. Regards. Keshav
Re: [aur-general] oDesk created archlinux packages!
2010/8/27 Stephen Weinberg : > On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 08:42:51 +0100 > >> >> My concern is more about using tools to automatically get updates. I >> see no way of using any established tools to do that :-( >> >> /M >> > > Should I modify my package to install or repackage their package? > Hi, I would recommend keeping the AUR package: their package does not provide the .desktop file. Not talking about license being not set (together with packager). - Vojta
Re: [aur-general] Packages deletion request and PKGBUILD check
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 2:59 AM, KESHAV P.R. wrote:
> 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 (based on tpowa's suggestion) and
> replaced by grub2-efi-bzr
> http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=40290 (see PKGBUILD for more
> info).
>
> Please delete these pkgs also -
>
> grub2-efi-x64 http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=39904 and
> grub2-efi-x86 http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=39905
>
> The packages have been merged and replaced by grub2-efi
> http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=40300 .
>
> Can someone please check the PKGBUILDs
> http://aur.archlinux.org/packages/grub2-efi-bzr/grub2-efi-bzr/PKGBUILD
> and http://aur.archlinux.org/packages/grub2-efi/grub2-efi/PKGBUILD for
> any apparent errors. Thanks in advance.
>
> Regards.
>
> Keshav
>
on the grub2-efi-bzr and grub2-efi PKGBUILD:
sed -i "s|^\(_EFI_ARCH\)=.*|\1=${_EFI_ARCH}|; \
s|^\(_trns_name\)=.*|\1=${_trns_name}|; \
s|^\(export _EFI_APP_MODULES\)=.*|\1=${_EFI_APP_MODULES}|" \
${startdir}/grub2-efi-bzr.install
Has startdir, probably could do ../grub2-efi-bzr.install
Re: [aur-general] Packages deletion request and PKGBUILD check
On 27/08/10 09:04, Nathan O wrote:
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 2:59 AM, KESHAV P.R. wrote:
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 (based on tpowa's suggestion) and
replaced by grub2-efi-bzr
http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=40290 (see PKGBUILD for more
info).
Please delete these pkgs also -
grub2-efi-x64 http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=39904 and
grub2-efi-x86 http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=39905
The packages have been merged and replaced by grub2-efi
http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=40300 .
Can someone please check the PKGBUILDs
http://aur.archlinux.org/packages/grub2-efi-bzr/grub2-efi-bzr/PKGBUILD
and http://aur.archlinux.org/packages/grub2-efi/grub2-efi/PKGBUILD for
any apparent errors. Thanks in advance.
Regards.
Keshav
on the grub2-efi-bzr and grub2-efi PKGBUILD:
sed -i "s|^\(_EFI_ARCH\)=.*|\1=${_EFI_ARCH}|; \
s|^\(_trns_name\)=.*|\1=${_trns_name}|; \
s|^\(export _EFI_APP_MODULES\)=.*|\1=${_EFI_APP_MODULES}|" \
${startdir}/grub2-efi-bzr.install
Has startdir, probably could do ../grub2-efi-bzr.install
I'm just making noise here, but I really don't think that .install file
should be doing what it's currently doing.
such as:
`cp /usr/lib/${_trns_name}/${_EFI_ARCH}-... /boot/...`
is there any reason this isn't *static* inside the package?
I'd argue that if it can do it at install time then it can do it at
buildtime, ofcourse I likely just mis-understood what's going on in that
file.
Re: [aur-general] Packages deletion request and PKGBUILD check
@Nathan O: I used startdir absolute path (instead of relative path).
Actually it should be ../../../grub2-efi-bzr.install
[quote Nathan Wayde]
I'm just making noise here, but I really don't think that .install file
should be doing what it's currently doing.
such as:
`cp /usr/lib/${_trns_name}/${_EFI_ARCH}-... /boot/...`
[/quote]
I plan to add EFISYS partition detection to the post_install script -
/boot/grub2_efi_x64 etc. is temporary location. Accoding to uefi spec
the proper location is /efi/grub2_efi_x64 (grub2_efi_x64
is my own naming - not according to uefi spec or grub2 devs). I leave
the post_install script unchanged for now. Is the dummy pkgname any
problem?
[aur-general] Deletion request
Hi, please delete these packages wolf-bin32 http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=29506 dib0700-firmware http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=23033 wolf now support x86_64 so the first one is unuseful, dib0700-firmware is provided by linux-firmware. Thank you in advance.
Re: [aur-general] Deletion request
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 1:49 PM, F B wrote: > Hi, please delete these packages > > wolf-bin32 http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=29506 > dib0700-firmware http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=23033 > > wolf now support x86_64 so the first one is unuseful, dib0700-firmware is > provided by linux-firmware. > Thank you in advance. Done.
Re: [aur-general] cmake build
On 27 August 2010 15:55, Nathan O wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 2:50 AM, Magnus Therning wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 08:44, Nathan O wrote:
>> > On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 2:41 AM, Magnus Therning > >wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 08:30, Nathan O wrote:
>> >> > On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 2:28 AM, Magnus Therning > >> >wrote:
>> >> [...]
>> >> > That is weird that you got grep to tell you which file(s) it was, when
>> >> > mine pointed nothing out to me.
>> >>
>> >> Indeed. This is what I see:
>> >>
>> >> % grep -R $(pwd)/src pkg
>> >> Binary file pkg/usr/bin/fqterm.bin matches
>> >>
>> >> I'm not sure if the dollar-sign was lost in your earlier email, but it
>> is
>> >> required to get the expected result.
>> >>
>> > Tried it exactly how you typed it as well, and nothing again
>>
>> Fascinating! Computers, eh? ;-)
>>
>> Anyway, if you are happy with my cheerful hand-waving of an explanation in
>> the
>> earlier email then just disregard the warning from pacman for now.
>> Otherwise
>> seek out someone who's more knowledgeable about QT and ask them. That's
>> pretty much the only advice I can give.
>>
>> /M
>>
>> --
>> Magnus Therning (OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4)
>> magnus＠therning．org Jabber: magnus＠therning．org
>> http://therning.org/magnus identi.ca|twitter: magthe
>>
>
> I uploaded the version that gave the warning before, since I can't reproduce
> what result you got.
Hi Nathan
That PKGBUILD is broken and bails. You don't need to move stuff around
so much if the build system is unified
(configure/cmake/make/scons/waf). You can use this PKGBUILD instead:
http://paste.pocoo.org/show/255008/
Notice that there is a "ccmake ." (note the dot) - that is just for
your reference as a package maintainer (press C and then G to
finalize). Use it to verify that all variables are correct, and what
else is available to configure. As such, patching a cmake-based build
system is incorrect; you simply configure with the options and prepend
"-D", i.e if you need to set RPATH off (you _don't_ need that with
this package):
cmake . -DCMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX=/usr \
-DCMAKE_SKIP_RPATH=ON
You can have it all on one line, doesn't matter (styling issue). Also,
the reference to $srcdir is within a binary, which is OK 90% of the
time. If you notice weird mentions of the build directory at runtime,
you need to report it upstream. This is my output:
[sc...@v3000 fqterm]$ grep -R "$(pwd)/src" pkg/
Binary file pkg/usr/bin/fqterm.bin matches
The use of quotes (" ") on variables and commands; use them whenever
there is possibility of reference to something with whitespace(s),
like a path (and paths can have spaces, especially when makepkg can be
run by a user from any dir). That's why when you see buildscripts of
some people or community (for eg. Gentoo ebuilds) they have
standardised the following for the sake of consistency:
"${foobar}"
The braces ({ }) allow escaping run-together words as variables, i.e
$foo_$bar won't work, you have to use ${foo}_$bar.
--
GPG/PGP ID: B42DDCAD
[aur-general] Voting period for Florian Pritz
Hello, The discussion period has ended, 120h since my confirmation have passed so it's time to vote. Log into the AUR and give your vote to the fourth currently running vote process (and every other where you haven't done so yet). Good luck Florian. And now vote or no cookies for no one! :-P Thorsten -- 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] Frupple delete request
On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 01:25:37 -0500 Nathan O wrote: > Also another package I am requesting to be deleted is frupple > http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=28699 It doesn't run. I would > attempt to send a bug report to the author, but it seems the author no > longer maintains it anymore. If I remember correctly, the site states > the file was uploaded on "2008-07-31" > > Thanks There are some commits in his mercurial repository[1] so I'd say that you should ask him for a new release. Maybe he even wants to maintain the package by himself as from his github Account it seems he's an Archer himself. [1] http://hg.meatballhat.com/frupple -- 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] fsirc
On 27.08.2010 08:07, Nathan O wrote: > Can somebody delete FSirc http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=20459 . > The author no longer has it listed on his site, and I found a git page for > it, but the last update was in 2008. It still builds, starts and connects. > Nothing is listed as depending on fsirc. Which is not unusual, as fsirc is a client. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [aur-general] Voting period for Florian Pritz
Thorsten Töpper writes: > Hello, > > The discussion period has ended, 120h since my confirmation have passed If you can believe email headers, the discussion period lasted 120 hours, 39 minutes, and 44 seconds, to be precise. Date:Sun, 22 Aug 2010 12:46:14 +0200 To: aur-general@archlinux.org Subject: Re: [aur-general] TU application Date:Fri, 27 Aug 2010 13:25:58 +0200 To: aur-general@archlinux.org Subject: [aur-general] Voting period for Florian Pritz It would be vaguely amusing if someone used the "at utility to schedule the start-of-voting message, so that it was sent exactly 120 hours after the acknowledgment-of-sponsorship message. -- Chris, who really needs to get out more often... pgptYnA0XtN53.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [aur-general] fsirc
On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 13:40:20 +0200 Wieland Hoffmann wrote: > On 27.08.2010 08:07, Nathan O wrote: > > Can somebody delete FSirc > > http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=20459 . The author no > > longer has it listed on his site, and I found a git page for it, > > but the last update was in 2008. > It still builds, starts and connects. > > > Nothing is listed as depending on fsirc. > Which is not unusual, as fsirc is a client. Yes, as long as the source is available and the program works it's better to search the web if the page of the code was simply moved without a note left at the old place. -- 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] cmake build
Am 27.08.2010 13:08, schrieb Ray Rashif: > > cmake . -DCMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX=/usr \ >-DCMAKE_SKIP_RPATH=ON Also build the release version with '-DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Release', because otherwise the binary contains references to the source code so that gdb finds the source files. Regards, Bernhard signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
[aur-general] Orphaning Request for dconf
Hello, Please orphan dconf [1] since it wasn't updated for over five weeks now. The first correction proposal is written on 20th July and now we got two new version since the latest update in the AUR. [1] http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=38530 Adam Hani Schakaki
Re: [aur-general] Licenses, GPL3 only
On Thursday 26 August 2010 at 18:57 Alexander Duscheleit wrote:
> Philipp Überbacher 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"?
Yes, this is your right. Just as you can take some software released under
"GPL2 or at your option, any later version" and redistribute it under GPL3
only. This is "your option". You do not have the pass the option on, since
that doesn't form part of the copyleft.
Of course, someone else can redistribute the original under GPL2 only, GPL4
only, GPL2 "or later" or GPL3 "or later". That's their option :-)
HTH,
Pete.
[aur-general] Orphan (adoption) request for x48 and delete request for x48-emulator
Good day. [this same message has been hanging in the non-subscriber moderation queue for a few days now] I'm a recent arch user (but longtime linux user) and would like to adopt the x48 package, an emulator for the HP-48 scientific calculator. There are two versions of the package on the AUR, x48 and x48-emulator but both are out of date and unfortunately neither listed maintainer (also CCed) has responded to email. I've created a new PKGBUILD updated to the current 0.6.3 and have also patched x48 itself to have it use the normal archlinux X11 app-defaults directory (/usr/share/X11/app-defaults) instead of a previously hard-coded /usr/lib/X11/app-defaults. The new PKGBUILD furthermore installs the "ROMDump" program so people can use it to grab the ROM from their own HP-48s. Might also like to do more serious work on the emulator in the future. I suppose the x48-emulator package will have been created only because back then the x48 maintainer also didn't respond -- if I can adopt the x48 package, the x48-emulator package could be deleted I suppose. I'm not a subscriber to the list; if I look through the archives I believe it's not usual to attach src archives but if anyone want to see my version, it's at: http://members.home.nl/rene.herman/arch/x48-0.6.3-1.src.tar.gz I'm "rene" on the AUR (with only the "ufiformat" package as of now). Regards, Rene
[aur-general] Package deletion
Hi, This package http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=26823 is out of date, orphan and is a duplicate of http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=26803 I think we should delete it. Guillaume
Re: [aur-general] Package deletion
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 11:43 AM, ALAUX, Guillaume wrote: > Hi, > > This package > > http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=26823 > > is out of date, orphan and is a duplicate of > > http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=26803 > > I think we should delete it. > > Guillaume > Target has been neutralized. Thank you.
Re: [aur-general] Licenses, GPL3 only
On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 15:22:03 +0100
Peter Lewis wrote:
> On Thursday 26 August 2010 at 18:57 Alexander Duscheleit wrote:
> > Philipp Überbacher 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"?
>
> Yes, this is your right. Just as you can take some software released
> under "GPL2 or at your option, any later version" and redistribute it
> under GPL3 only. This is "your option". You do not have the pass the
> option on, since that doesn't form part of the copyleft.
>
> Of course, someone else can redistribute the original under GPL2
> only, GPL4 only, GPL2 "or later" or GPL3 "or later". That's their
> option :-)
>
That was my understanding, too. :-)
It gets more interesting, when I make changes to my redistributed
software, though.
If i understand correctly, if upstream is GPL2+ and my version is GLP3
only, I effectively either cut upstream out from my changes or force
them to upgrade their version to GPL3 only (not even GPL3+).
This looks to me, like I could violate the spirit of the GPL through the
GPL itself.
(Poaching in lawyers waters as a layman sure is fun :-D.)
Jinks
Re: [aur-general] Licenses, GPL3 only
Excerpts from Alexander Duscheleit's message of 2010-08-27 21:31:29 +0200:
> On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 15:22:03 +0100
> Peter Lewis wrote:
>
> > On Thursday 26 August 2010 at 18:57 Alexander Duscheleit wrote:
> > > Philipp Überbacher 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"?
> >
> > Yes, this is your right. Just as you can take some software released
> > under "GPL2 or at your option, any later version" and redistribute it
> > under GPL3 only. This is "your option". You do not have the pass the
> > option on, since that doesn't form part of the copyleft.
> >
> > Of course, someone else can redistribute the original under GPL2
> > only, GPL4 only, GPL2 "or later" or GPL3 "or later". That's their
> > option :-)
> >
> That was my understanding, too. :-)
>
> It gets more interesting, when I make changes to my redistributed
> software, though.
> If i understand correctly, if upstream is GPL2+ and my version is GLP3
> only, I effectively either cut upstream out from my changes or force
> them to upgrade their version to GPL3 only (not even GPL3+).
> This looks to me, like I could violate the spirit of the GPL through the
> GPL itself.
> (Poaching in lawyers waters as a layman sure is fun :-D.)
>
> Jinks
Someone in #fsf on freenode might be able to answer you. I guess the
answer would be: "optimally there would be no such thing as GPLvN only".
--
Philipp
--
"Wir stehen selbst enttäuscht und sehn betroffen / Den Vorhang zu
und alle Fragen offen." Bertolt Brecht, Der gute Mensch von Sezuan
[aur-general] Changes to AUR and community due to the multilib repository
With the creation of the [multilib] repository, all 32-bit libraries are now installed in /usr/lib32 and compiled from source using the gcc-multilib package instead of being copied from i686 packages. All AUR users maintaining lib32-* and bin32-* packages are encouraged to adapt their packages to the new layout. All trusted users who want to maintain 32 bit packages should join the arch-multilib mailing list and ask for access there. The x86_64 community repository should remain lib32-free in the future. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [aur-general] Changes to AUR and community due to the multilib repository
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 10:23 PM, Thomas Bächler wrote: > With the creation of the [multilib] repository, all 32-bit libraries are > now installed in /usr/lib32 and compiled from source using the > gcc-multilib package instead of being copied from i686 packages. All AUR > users maintaining lib32-* and bin32-* packages are encouraged to adapt > their packages to the new layout. > > All trusted users who want to maintain 32 bit packages should join the > arch-multilib mailing list and ask for access there. The x86_64 > community repository should remain lib32-free in the future. Some pointers: lib32-packages should... - only install the 32-bit libraries and depend on their 64-bit equivalent for completeness (e.g. lib32-foo depends on foo) - depend on lib32-glibc at least, if they don't depend on other lib32-* packages. - depend on lib32-libtool if they require the libtool libraries at runtime - makedepend on gcc-multilib if they build using gcc - makedepend on libtool-multilib if they build using libtool - use as appropriate: export CC="gcc -m32" export CXX="g++ -m32" export PKG_CONFIG_PATH="/usr/lib32/pkgconfig" - symlink their license directory to the 64-bit version if they have custom licenses (/usr/share/licenses/lib32-foo --> foo), instead of installing another copy - have a pkgdesc identical to their 64-bit version, with " (32-bit)" appended
Re: [aur-general] Orphan (adoption) request for x48 and delete request for x48-emulator
Am 27.08.2010 16:27, schrieb René Herman: > Good day. > > [this same message has been hanging in the non-subscriber moderation queue > for a few days now] > > I'm a recent arch user (but longtime linux user) and would like to adopt the > x48 package, an emulator for the HP-48 scientific calculator. > > There are two versions of the package on the AUR, x48 and x48-emulator but > both are out of date and unfortunately neither listed maintainer (also CCed) > has responded to email. > > I've created a new PKGBUILD updated to the current 0.6.3 and have also > patched x48 itself to have it use the normal archlinux X11 app-defaults > directory (/usr/share/X11/app-defaults) instead of a previously hard-coded > /usr/lib/X11/app-defaults. The new PKGBUILD furthermore installs the > "ROMDump" program so people can use it to grab the ROM from their own HP-48s. > Might also like to do more serious work on the emulator in the future. > > I suppose the x48-emulator package will have been created only because back > then the x48 maintainer also didn't respond -- if I can adopt the x48 > package, the x48-emulator package could be deleted I suppose. > > I'm not a subscriber to the list; if I look through the archives I believe > it's not usual to attach src archives but if anyone want to see my version, > it's at: > > http://members.home.nl/rene.herman/arch/x48-0.6.3-1.src.tar.gz > > I'm "rene" on the AUR (with only the "ufiformat" package as of now). > > Regards, > Rene > Hello, I orphaned x48 and deleted the other one. Feel free to adopt. Thank you
Re: [aur-general] Orphaning Request for dconf
Am 27.08.2010 14:47, schrieb Adam Hani Schakaki: > Hello, > Please orphan dconf [1] since it wasn't updated for over five weeks now. The > first correction proposal is written on 20th July and now we got two new > version since the latest update in the AUR. > > [1] http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=38530 > > Adam Hani Schakaki > Done, feel free to adopt.
[aur-general] Deletion request
Hi, Could you please delete gdb-archer-python-git [1] ? It is not needed anymore as gdb in [extra] now supports Python scripting. Thanks in advance, [1] http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=36034 -- Pierre "delroth" Bourdon Étudiant à l'EPITA / Student at EPITA http://bitbucket.org/delroth/
Re: [aur-general] Deletion request
On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 1:39 AM, Pierre Bourdon wrote: > Hi, > > Could you please delete gdb-archer-python-git [1] ? It is not needed > anymore as gdb in [extra] now supports Python scripting. > > Thanks in advance, > > [1] http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=36034 > > -- > Pierre "delroth" Bourdon > Étudiant à l'EPITA / Student at EPITA > http://bitbucket.org/delroth/ Done.
[aur-general] lib32-libstdc++5?
Hi all, Just realized http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=11191 is orphaned, and that there's quite a few comments below specifying exactly how to update it. Considering how many packages depend on it, I'm surprised its orphaned, but when I checked the PKGBUILD its a well-recognized name. Should I just adopt this package to update it and orphan it? Or is it more polite to wait for Pierre since I think its his package based on the name there. Or does the orphan indicate he doesn't want this package anymore? Thanks. Ng Oon-Ee
Re: [aur-general] lib32-libstdc++5?
2010/8/28 Ng Oon-Ee : > Should I just adopt this package to update it and orphan it? Or is it > more polite to wait for Pierre since I think its his package based on > the name there. Or does the orphan indicate he doesn't want this package > anymore? An orphaned package is orphaned. If you can help, by all means go for it.
Re: [aur-general] Orphan (adoption) request for x48 and delete request for x48-emulator
Hey, I was angling for that one :-P Note that I had crated a patch to the newer of the packages and it is attached as a comment. How does your patch compare to mine? I sent an email to the maintainer (clamy) earlier this week and have heard nothing back as yet. I was going to adopt it, but if you would like it, that is okay by me. ewaller On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 7:27 AM, René Herman wrote: > Good day. > > [this same message has been hanging in the non-subscriber moderation queue > for a few days now] > I'm a recent arch user (but longtime linux user) and would like to adopt > the x48 package, an emulator for the HP-48 scientific calculator. > > There are two versions of the package on the AUR, x48 and x48-emulator but > both are out of date and unfortunately neither listed maintainer (also CCed) > has responded to email. > > I've created a new PKGBUILD updated to the current 0.6.3 and have also > patched x48 itself to have it use the normal archlinux X11 app-defaults > directory (/usr/share/X11/app-defaults) instead of a previously hard-coded > /usr/lib/X11/app-defaults. The new PKGBUILD furthermore installs the > "ROMDump" program so people can use it to grab the ROM from their own > HP-48s. Might also like to do more serious work on the emulator in the > future. > > I suppose the x48-emulator package will have been created only because back > then the x48 maintainer also didn't respond -- if I can adopt the x48 > package, the x48-emulator package could be deleted I suppose. > > I'm not a subscriber to the list; if I look through the archives I believe > it's not usual to attach src archives but if anyone want to see my version, > it's at: > > http://members.home.nl/rene.herman/arch/x48-0.6.3-1.src.tar.gz > > I'm "rene" on the AUR (with only the "ufiformat" package as of now). > > Regards, > Rene >
Re: [aur-general] lib32-libstdc++5?
On Sat, 2010-08-28 at 03:38 +0200, Jan Steffens wrote: > 2010/8/28 Ng Oon-Ee : > > Should I just adopt this package to update it and orphan it? Or is it > > more polite to wait for Pierre since I think its his package based on > > the name there. Or does the orphan indicate he doesn't want this package > > anymore? > > An orphaned package is orphaned. > If you can help, by all means go for it. Hi Jan, I see you've got libstdc++5 in [extra]. I'll patch up the PKGBUILD, but would lib32-libstdc++5 be under consideration for [multilib]?
Re: [aur-general] lib32-libstdc++5?
2010/8/28 Ng Oon-Ee : > On Sat, 2010-08-28 at 03:38 +0200, Jan Steffens wrote: >> 2010/8/28 Ng Oon-Ee : >> > Should I just adopt this package to update it and orphan it? Or is it >> > more polite to wait for Pierre since I think its his package based on >> > the name there. Or does the orphan indicate he doesn't want this package >> > anymore? >> >> An orphaned package is orphaned. >> If you can help, by all means go for it. > > Hi Jan, I see you've got libstdc++5 in [extra]. I'll patch up the > PKGBUILD, but would lib32-libstdc++5 be under consideration for > [multilib]? You got the wrong Jan. :p If you want to propose a package, post to the multilib mailing list.
Re: [aur-general] lib32-libstdc++5?
Jan Steffens wrote: > You got the wrong Jan. :p What? I thought they were all interchangeable.
Re: [aur-general] delete package
Sorry Evangelos. the package is: http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=26897
Re: [aur-general] cmake build
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 6:43 AM, Bernhard Walle wrote: > Am 27.08.2010 13:08, schrieb Ray Rashif: > > > > cmake . -DCMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX=/usr \ > >-DCMAKE_SKIP_RPATH=ON > > Also build the release version with '-DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Release', > because otherwise the binary contains references to the source code so > that gdb finds the source files. > > > Regards, > Bernhard > > Thank you all for the tips, I simily prefer the ./configure and make system :D, never had very much experience with cmake
Re: [aur-general] fsirc
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 6:41 AM, Thorsten Töpper wrote: > On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 13:40:20 +0200 > Wieland Hoffmann wrote: > > On 27.08.2010 08:07, Nathan O wrote: > > > Can somebody delete FSirc > > > http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=20459 . The author no > > > longer has it listed on his site, and I found a git page for it, > > > but the last update was in 2008. > > It still builds, starts and connects. > > > > > Nothing is listed as depending on fsirc. > > Which is not unusual, as fsirc is a client. > > Yes, as long as the source is available and the program works it's > better to search the web if the page of the code was simply moved > without a note left at the old place. > > -- > Jabber: atsut...@freethoughts.de Blog: http://atsutane.freethoughts.de/ > Key: 295AFBF4 FP: 39F8 80E5 0E49 A4D1 1341 E8F9 39E4 F17F 295A FBF4 > I will keep then. I figured the download location would be not found either, but aparantly for now the author hasn't deleted the source. Thanks
Re: [aur-general] cmake build
On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 12:18 AM, Nathan O wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 6:43 AM, Bernhard Walle wrote:
>
>> Am 27.08.2010 13:08, schrieb Ray Rashif:
>> >
>> > cmake . -DCMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX=/usr \
>> >-DCMAKE_SKIP_RPATH=ON
>>
>> Also build the release version with '-DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Release',
>> because otherwise the binary contains references to the source code so
>> that gdb finds the source files.
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Bernhard
>>
>> Thank you all for the tips, I simily prefer the ./configure and make
> system :D, never had very much experience with cmake
>
I put
cmake . -DCMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX=/usr \
> -DCMAKE_SKIP_RPATH=ON \
> -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Release
>
> install -d ${pkgdir}/usr/{bin,share/{applications,pixmaps,${pkgname}}}
> make DESTDIR="${pkgdir}" install
> install -m644 res/pic/${pkgname}.png
> ${pkgdir}/usr/share/pixmaps/${pkgname}.png
> install -Dm644 ${srcdir}/${pkgname}.desktop
> ${pkgdir}/usr/share/applications/${pkgname}.desktop
>
> Still says that grep -R $(pwd)/src pkg/
Binary file pkg/usr/bin/fqterm.bin matches
[aur-general] Removal request for lib32-libsamplerate
Hi, TUs. Please remove my lib32-libsamplerate package[1] (it is in [multilib] now). [1] http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=31550
Re: [aur-general] delete package
On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 7:53 AM, corvolino wrote: > Sorry Evangelos. the package is: > > http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=26897 Deleted.
Re: [aur-general] Removal request for lib32-libsamplerate
On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 8:45 AM, Mikhail Vorozhtsov wrote: > Hi, TUs. > > Please remove my lib32-libsamplerate package[1] (it is in [multilib] > now). > > [1] http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=31550 Done.
Re: [aur-general] Frupple delete request
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 6:35 AM, Thorsten Töpper wrote: > On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 01:25:37 -0500 > Nathan O wrote: > > Also another package I am requesting to be deleted is frupple > > http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=28699 It doesn't run. I would > > attempt to send a bug report to the author, but it seems the author no > > longer maintains it anymore. If I remember correctly, the site states > > the file was uploaded on "2008-07-31" > > > > Thanks > > There are some commits in his mercurial repository[1] so I'd say that > you should ask him for a new release. Maybe he even wants to maintain > the package by himself as from his github Account it seems he's an > Archer himself. > > [1] http://hg.meatballhat.com/frupple > -- > Jabber: atsut...@freethoughts.de Blog: http://atsutane.freethoughts.de/ > Key: 295AFBF4 FP: 39F8 80E5 0E49 A4D1 1341 E8F9 39E4 F17F 295A FBF4 > Nevermind, I got it to work, seemed to only need flickrapi(which I created pkg), though it didn't tell me this last night for some reason.
Re: [aur-general] cmake build
Am 28.08.10 07:30, schrieb Nathan O: >> >> Still says that grep -R $(pwd)/src pkg/ > Binary file pkg/usr/bin/fqterm.bin matches Could you search for the string in a text editor (one that has no problem with binary files like vim) or just use 'strings' and tell us in which context the string occurs? Maybe then we have an idea how to get rid of it. :) Regards, Bernhard signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [aur-general] cmake build
t On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 1:27 AM, Bernhard Walle wrote: > Am 28.08.10 07:30, schrieb Nathan O: > >> > >> Still says that grep -R $(pwd)/src pkg/ > > Binary file pkg/usr/bin/fqterm.bin matches > > Could you search for the string in a text editor (one that has no > problem with binary files like vim) or just use 'strings' and tell us in > which context the string occurs? Maybe then we have an idea how to get > rid of it. :) > > > Regards, > Bernhard > > > When I do strings /usr/bin/fqterm.bin I see http://aur.pastebin.com/FQ3wrRNV
