[aur-general] "bin32-skype" in [multilib] (as "skype")
CCing my announcement in the comments of bin32-skype (http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=7914), please keep the package for at least 7 days to get people a chance to switch to [multilib]. "Since the announcement of the new [multilib] repository yesterday (http://www.archlinux.org/news/508/), I strongly encourage ALL users of bin32-skype to switch to the Skype package of that repository and report bugs and problems to the Arch bug tracker at http://bugs.archlinux.org (be sure that you have switched to "Community Packages"). I already have done testing of the package in [multilib] since it has been uploaded and I am bug free. Please help to find more bugs on different systems so that the change will go smoothly when this package will be removed from the AUR." -- Malte Rabenseifner, Germany m...@malte-rabenseifner.de -- Beneath knowing, understanding. Beneath understanding, seeing. Beneath seeing, recognizing. Beneath recognizing, knowing. --
[aur-general] httpfs
Can somebody delete httpfs http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=15621there is an httpfs2 package which seems to be more up to date and probably is the successor of httpfs,also nothing requires httpfs. Thanks
[aur-general] gtkd delete
Also found another, gtkd http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=22002 The package won't compile, the last commit to the author's git repo is around 2 years ago. I tried using dsss like it said to use to build it and also renamed GNUmakefile to Makefile and ran make. If I used dsss, it would not install anything in the $pkgdir. If I tried running make, then it would give a compile error.
[aur-general] Rename 'qpamat-hg' to 'qpamat-git'
Hi, could someone of the TUs do the rename or alternatively if that's not possible just delete 'qpamat-hg' so that I can upload 'qpamat-hg'? Thanks in advance. Regards, Bernhard signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [aur-general] Rename 'qpamat-hg' to 'qpamat-git'
Am 28.08.2010 12:52, schrieb Bernhard Walle: > I can upload 'qpamat-hg' 'qpamat-git', of course. Regards, Bernhard signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [aur-general] cmake build
Am 28.08.2010 08:44, schrieb Nathan O: >> When I do strings /usr/bin/fqterm.bin I see > http://aur.pastebin.com/FQ3wrRNV Without the context, that information is more or less useless. Could you upload the complete binary somewhere? Or everything we need to rebuild the package (PKGBUILD, tarball / URL, ...)? Regards, Bernhard signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
[aur-general] deletion request
Please delete the following packages from AUR :- grub2-efi-x64-bzr http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=39901 grub2-efi-x86-bzr http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=39902 grub2-efi-x64 http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=39904 grub2-efi-x86 http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=39905 The packages have been merged (based on tpowa's suggestion) and replaced by grub2-efi-bzr http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=40290 and grub2-efi http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=40300 (see the PKGBUILDs for more info). Thanks in advance. Keshav
Re: [aur-general] Rename 'qpamat-hg' to 'qpamat-git'
Am 28.08.2010 12:53, schrieb Bernhard Walle: > Am 28.08.2010 12:52, schrieb Bernhard Walle: >> I can upload 'qpamat-hg' > > 'qpamat-git', of course. > > > Regards, > Bernhard > Hello, I deleted qpamat-hg, feel free to upload 'qpamat-git' Regards Stefan
Re: [aur-general] deletion request
Am 28.08.2010 13:22, schrieb KESHAV P.R.: > Please delete the following packages from AUR :- > > grub2-efi-x64-bzr http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=39901 > grub2-efi-x86-bzr http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=39902 > > grub2-efi-x64 http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=39904 > grub2-efi-x86 http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=39905 > > The packages have been merged (based on tpowa's suggestion) and > replaced by grub2-efi-bzr > http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=40290 and grub2-efi > http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=40300 (see the PKGBUILDs for > more info). Thanks in advance. > > Keshav > Done, thank you.
Re: [aur-general] httpfs
Am 28.08.2010 10:55, schrieb Nathan O: > Can somebody delete httpfs > http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=15621there is an httpfs2 > package which seems to be more up to date and probably > is the successor of httpfs,also nothing requires httpfs. > > Thanks > Done, thanks
Re: [aur-general] gtkd delete
On Sat 28 Aug 2010 04:10 -0500, Nathan O wrote: > Also found another, gtkd http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=22002 The > package won't compile, the last commit to the author's git repo is around 2 > years ago. I tried using dsss like it said to use to build it and also > renamed GNUmakefile to Makefile and ran make. If I used dsss, it would not > install anything in the $pkgdir. If I tried running make, then it would give > a compile error. I don't believe a compile error is a good enough reason to delete a package. If the source code is still available you can always patch it. The best reasons for deletion are: - It contains malicious programs. - The package is a duplicate of another. - The package is obsolete. Development has moved to another project. - Source code or data is no longer available. - There is some kind of legal issue that forbits a PKGBUILD. This is probably non existant.
Re: [aur-general] delete package
2010/8/28 Evangelos Foutras : Hi, >> Sorry Evangelos. the package is: >> >> http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=26897 > > Deleted. It would be nice if deletion requests also came with a package name instead of just a link. Kind regards, -- Bram Schoenmakers What is mind? No matter. What is matter? Never mind. (Punch, 1855)
Re: [aur-general] Orphan (adoption) request for x48 and delete request for x48-emulator
No problem. You definitely started first and went well beyond what I did. Thanks. I'm curious -- do you know if I can capture and use the 50g ROM? If you know, could you send me a PM? On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 2:23 AM, René Herman wrote: > On 08/28/2010 03:55 AM, Eric Waller wrote: > > I was angling for that one :-P >> > > I see. Had done this one already a month ago but was up to now still > waiting for a possible maintainer-reply. > > > 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? >> > > It's fairly different. I saw the posted patch for x48-emulator just after I > sent the message to the AUR mailing list but I believe that one only upped > the version to 0.6.3 and added x86-64. > > The old x48-emulator PKGBUILD (and the patched one, then) had a problem > with missing dependencies and as described in the message, with a hard-coded > "non-archlinux compliant" /usr/lib/X11/app-defaults directory. > > I also install the ROMDump program from the sources for those of us that > want to grab their own ROMs. > > > I sent an email to the maintainer (clamy) earlier this week and have heard >> nothing back as yet. >> > > Contacted him a month ago as well and also silence. Same for the original > x48 maintainer. > > > I was going to adopt it, but if you would like it, that is okay by me. >> > > For now, I've adopted it. I'll be fairly busy again with other things the > coming period but was planning on at least looking into giving X48 a > somewhat less obsolete configuration mechanism than the X defaults stuff > (ie, just an /etc/x48.conf or some such). If you do more extensive "upstream > work" than we can always switch maintainership of the package again. I'm > normally at least fairly responsive to email... > > New x48 is up on the AUR! > > Regards, > Rene >
[aur-general] PKGBUILDs check
Can someone please check these PKGBUILDs for any apparent errors. Please ignore the pkgnames for now. Thanks in advance. grub2-efi-bzr http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=40290 grub2-efi http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=40300 Regards. Keshav
Re: [aur-general] PKGBUILDs check
This package also grub2-with-extras-bzr http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=40061 Regards. Keshav
Re: [aur-general] cmake build
On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 5:55 AM, Bernhard Walle wrote: > Am 28.08.2010 08:44, schrieb Nathan O: > >> When I do strings /usr/bin/fqterm.bin I see > > http://aur.pastebin.com/FQ3wrRNV > > Without the context, that information is more or less useless. Could you > upload the complete binary somewhere? Or everything we need to rebuild > the package (PKGBUILD, tarball / URL, ...)? > > Regards, > Bernhard > > > Here is the pkg file: http://www.mediafire.com/file/of1b1v48rlwkn72/fqterm-0.9.6.8-2-i686.pkg.tar.xz
Re: [aur-general] cmake build
Hi, Am 28.08.2010 19:17, schrieb Nathan O: >> >> Here is the pkg file: > http://www.mediafire.com/file/of1b1v48rlwkn72/fqterm-0.9.6.8-2-i686.pkg.tar.xz Ok, I took a look at the project. The problem is that the source code uses __FILE__ and gcc uses the full path of __FILE__ if not called in the same directory. So gcc -c bla.c # (1) produces __FILE__ as 'bla.c' while gcc -o /home/bwalle/bla.o /home/bwalle/bla.c # (2) produces __FILE__ as '/home/bwalle/bla.c'. Since the build system uses a main CMakeLists.txt instead of split CMakeLists.txt in the source files gcc gets called the way (1). I would just ignore the warning, but if you really care, you chould change the build system. Or simply replace __FILE__ by "". HTH. Regards, Bernhard signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [aur-general] delete package
On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 4:15 PM, Bram Schoenmakers wrote: > 2010/8/28 Evangelos Foutras : > > Hi, > >>> Sorry Evangelos. the package is: >>> >>> http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=26897 >> >> Deleted. > > It would be nice if deletion requests also came with a package name > instead of just a link. even more nice would be if the links where like packages.php?pkgname=foobar :P
[aur-general] PKGBUILD: build() vs package() function
Hello, hope I don't get this missplaced, as a quick search didn'd get me any results. When I have a package, which does actually build nothing -- say wine_gecko (a file only needs to be placed to a correct directory) -- I should only have package() function in the PKGBUILD, is that a correct interpretation? Now the makepkg is happy but the AUR complaints. I can workaround that with an empty build() function in that case the AUR is happy but the makepkg complains. So I just put in there a harmless echo and both are happy now. Actually my question is not that much about the correct workarounding, as it is about if I really get the meaning of the build() and package() functions correctly, that is for building build(), for installing package()? Thanx, Nicky. -- Don't it always seem to go That you don't know what you've got Till it's gone (Joni Mitchell)
Re: [aur-general] PKGBUILD: build() vs package() function
On 08/28/2010 10:32 PM, Nicky726 wrote: Hello, hope I don't get this missplaced, as a quick search didn'd get me any results. When I have a package, which does actually build nothing -- say wine_gecko (a file only needs to be placed to a correct directory) -- I should only have package() function in the PKGBUILD, is that a correct interpretation? Now the makepkg is happy but the AUR complaints. I can workaround that with an empty build() function in that case the AUR is happy but the makepkg complains. So I just put in there a harmless echo and both are happy now. Actually my question is not that much about the correct workarounding, as it is about if I really get the meaning of the build() and package() functions correctly, that is for building build(), for installing package()? Thanx, Nicky. Hi Nicky, your interpretation sounds very sensible to me. The related AUR-bugreport is here: http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/19914 The bug is fixed in the git-repository, but the software on aur.archlinux.org was not updated after that patch was applied. An update of the AUR is not scheduled yet. Regards, PyroPeter -- freenode/pyropeter "12:50 - Ich drücke Return."
[aur-general] libicq2000
Should libicq2000 http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=11337 be deleted, the package gives that it can't find libsigc++ though it is installed. I did some research and it is said that libicq2000 will not work with the libsigc++-2. I am thinking that you are not able to install libsigc++ and libsigc++-2. If it is to be deleted, package ickle http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=11336 should be deleted because it depends on libicq2000. Not sure what to do in this aspect. Thanks
Re: [aur-general] PKGBUILD: build() vs package() function
On 28 August 2010 22:32, Nicky726 wrote: > Hello, > > hope I don't get this missplaced, as a quick search didn'd get me any results. > > When I have a package, which does actually build nothing -- say wine_gecko (a > file only needs to be placed to a correct directory) -- I should only have > package() function in the PKGBUILD, is that a correct interpretation? > > Now the makepkg is happy but the AUR complaints. I can workaround that with an > empty build() function in that case the AUR is happy but the makepkg > complains. So I just put in there a harmless echo and both are happy now. > Actually my question is not that much about the correct workarounding, as it > is about if I really get the meaning of the build() and package() functions > correctly, that is for building build(), for installing package()? > > Thanx, > Nicky. > Personally I'd use /bin/true instead of echo. However I think in this case having everything in build() is justifiable. Lukas
Re: [aur-general] libicq2000
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 1:23 AM, Nathan O wrote: > Should libicq2000 http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=11337 be > deleted, the package gives that it can't find libsigc++ though it is > installed. I did some research and it is said that libicq2000 will not work > with the libsigc++-2. I am thinking that you are not able to install > libsigc++ and libsigc++-2. If it is to be deleted, package ickle > http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=11336 should be deleted because > it depends on libicq2000. Not sure what to do in this aspect. > > Thanks > Or the better question may be, can libsigc++-2 and libsigc++ be "friendly" together? I am betting no, but if it can then it wouldn't need to be deleted(the above mention packages)
