Re: [aur-general] replying-on-thread issues (was AUR Copyright)
Dne Út 8. února 2011 00:07:42 Ng Oon-Ee napsal(a): Seems to work for me here on Evolution. Nice to hear. Thanx to all who helped me. 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] TU Resignation
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 8:25 PM, Andrea Scarpino and...@archlinux.org wrote: Hi TUs, it's my time to leave the [community] repo. I orphaned more packages in the last year and now I orphan the rest: - choqok - quoauth - oxygen-gtk - rekonq - wtf Has been an honour to work with all you guys. Thank you all. As a simple user, thanks you for your advices and your work in community. -- Sébastien Luttringer www.seblu.net
Re: [aur-general] Moving packages to Community
Not that I wouldn't mind the credit but it was Lukas Fleischer who implemented the official repo checking code and not me. He is also hosting the git repository for his branch of the AUR. Oops, yeah, I saw this too at some point. Your idea sort of sounds like retiring a package to me. That seems like an interesting idea but I am not sure the benefits are worth the work involved. The benefits that I can see are: Well, a retired AUR package isn't much retiring in my notion, but more active than ever before, due to the fact that it is officially part of Archlinux at that point. The thing is that the intention behind this is to basically insert a cheery error page that would iron out the complaints from AUR maintainers that seem to come up frequently. It would improve the communication with TUs when there's a mailto address to the guy displayed, which does the package now. + keeping a backup of the source package (for whom? are they that valuable?) + keeping a backup of the comments, which hardly anyone can see (the original author? TUs?) displace-by-topic-coverage - what sort of design on the web could be used to show old retired package comments? you can't hide a package and show its comments. who is the end-user for old musty comments anyways? The backup of the source package is unnecessary, as well as the comments to the point, that maybe said maintainer wants to look at it for a last time. So that could be, like some static you-might-be-looking-for-this-data-but-probably-not kind of way. Nice to have, no must-have, anyways. Just for the sake that I did read ppl complaining about that as well... Just to be specific, a TU clicks the Retire button on a package to retire it. A retired package is hidden from the general user. Only the original author can see it. I suppose TU or devs could see it as well, in a special swanky section of the site. Problems I brainstormed: - what happens if the original author disowns his invisible retired package? does he lose it never to found again? would anyone care? There should no more be a way to disown that package. The intention is really just a bite more than the database entry not found surprise people now have. The only thing that can be done by that former owner and only that former owner is to approve, and when approved, it's going to be deleted. Anyways there you go. If I were the one expected to spend time programming this (for free) I would say that it's not worth the effort. That's more nicely said than unsubscribing this list, but you would remember by the fifth time this flame awakes as a zombie... :-D Let's see... cheers! mar77i
Re: [aur-general] Moving packages to Community
I would like to add that for some AUR-users, the packages is what they would have to show for if they were to apply to become a TU. As far as I know, the AUR history is not recorded in any accessible way. - Alexander (trontonic on AUR / xyproto on #archlinux)
Re: [aur-general] AUR Copyright
On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 2:36 AM, Gordon JC Pearce gordon...@gjcp.net wrote: I'm going to jump in and say that you may consider any of my PKGBUILDs to be under the WTFPL (google it, text may not be worksafe if they object to Anglo-Saxon epithets. I'm sure you get the idea). Speaking of which I never understood how it was possible for a jurisdiction to not have the concept of a 'public domain' (thus necessitating the WTFPL). For example, where does a patented process go after the expiration of the patent? Oh and once again I vote we public domain (or as close as possible) all PKGBUILD's in the AUR. And one last point I want to bring up. Often PKGBUILD's are distributed with patches or other works not written by the author of the PKGBUILD. I'm not an expert but it seems to me that the license on the PKGBUILD would have to be compatible with the license on each such bundled work. --Kaiting. -- Kiwis and Limes: http://kaitocracy.blogspot.com/
[aur-general] Deletion request
Hi, The following packages: - openxencenter (http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=34398) - openxencenter-svn (http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=36074) are replaced by openxenmanager-svn (http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=45800) as upstream switched name from openxencenter to openxenmanager. Why not clear AUR from obsolete ones? Cheers, -- Krzysztof Raczkowski racz...@gmail.com signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [aur-general] AUR Copyright
On 02/08/2011 06:03 PM, Kaiting Chen wrote: On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 2:36 AM, Gordon JC Pearcegordon...@gjcp.net wrote: I'm going to jump in and say that you may consider any of my PKGBUILDs to be under the WTFPL (google it, text may not be worksafe if they object to Anglo-Saxon epithets. I'm sure you get the idea). Speaking of which I never understood how it was possible for a jurisdiction to not have the concept of a 'public domain' (thus necessitating the WTFPL). For example, where does a patented process go after the expiration of the patent? Oh and once again I vote we public domain (or as close as possible) all PKGBUILD's in the AUR. And one last point I want to bring up. Often PKGBUILD's are distributed with patches or other works not written by the author of the PKGBUILD. I'm not an expert but it seems to me that the license on the PKGBUILD would have to be compatible with the license on each such bundled work. --Kaiting. For example, here in Germany, there is a public domain where things go if their copyright expires or they don't reach the threshold of originality. You just can't waive your rights and release something into it directly. How is this possible? Well: someone sat down and wrote a law. (Note that patents and copyright don't have much to do with each other, I'm talking about copyright here. There are no software patents here.) WRT licenses, I too think BSD would be a good choice for obvious reasons (permissive, short/simple, widely used, unversioned, compatible to most other licenses). That is, if we need a license at all. This licensing stuff always gets in the way, I wish there was a way we could avoid it. I am not a lawyer. Felix
[aur-general] Please help create package lib32-gobject-introspection
Hi all,
I'm trying to build gobject-introspection for lib32 version for my Arch64,
but it is failing in the configure command saying that Python headers were
not found. This 32 bit library package seems to be dependecy (not sure,
though) for some lib32 packages (afaik at-spi, gconf, polkit,
gstreamer0.10).
Can someone please help as I really don't know how to solve this issue?
Thanks!
( Sorry for the size of the email. I thought it would be good to add some
log messages and didn't know if attachment is allowed. PLEASE remove some
lines when reply!)
*** My configure command in the PKGBUILD
./configure --prefix=/usr --libdir=/usr/lib32 --disable-static \
PYTHON='python2' CC='gcc -m32'
*** See part of the output of it below:
(...)
checking for python2 version... 2.7
checking for python2 platform... linux2
checking for python2 script directory...
${prefix}/lib/python2.7/site-packages
checking for python2 extension module directory...
${exec_prefix}/lib/python2.7/site-packages
checking for headers required to compile python extensions... not found
configure: error: Python headers not found
Aborting...
*** Part of the config.log :
(...)
configure:13341: checking for headers required to compile python extensions
configure:13356: gcc -m32 -E -I/usr/include/python2.7 conftest.c
In file included from /usr/include/python2.7/Python.h:8:0,
from conftest.c:45:
/usr/include/python2.7/pyconfig.h:989:0: warning: SIZEOF_LONG redefined
conftest.c:31:0: note: this is the location of the previous definition
In file included from /usr/include/python2.7/Python.h:58:0,
from conftest.c:45:
/usr/include/python2.7/pyport.h:849:2: error: #error LONG_BIT definition
appears wrong for platform (bad gcc/glibc config?).
configure:13356: $? = 1
configure: failed program was:
| /* confdefs.h */
| #define PACKAGE_NAME gobject-introspection
| #define PACKAGE_TARNAME gobject-introspection
| #define PACKAGE_VERSION 0.9.12
| #define PACKAGE_STRING gobject-introspection 0.9.12
| #define PACKAGE_BUGREPORT
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/enter_bug.cgi?product=glibcomponent=introspection
| #define PACKAGE_URL
| #define PACKAGE gobject-introspection
| #define VERSION 0.9.12
| #define STDC_HEADERS 1
| #define HAVE_SYS_TYPES_H 1
| #define HAVE_SYS_STAT_H 1
| #define HAVE_STDLIB_H 1
| #define HAVE_STRING_H 1
| #define HAVE_MEMORY_H 1
| #define HAVE_STRINGS_H 1
| #define HAVE_INTTYPES_H 1
| #define HAVE_STDINT_H 1
| #define HAVE_UNISTD_H 1
| #define HAVE_DLFCN_H 1
| #define LT_OBJDIR .libs/
| #define YYTEXT_POINTER 1
| #define HAVE_LIBDL 1
| #define SHLIB_SUFFIX so
| #define GOBJECT_INTROSPECTION_LIBDIR /usr/lib32
| #define GIR_SUFFIX gir-1.0
| #define GIR_DIR /usr/share/gir-1.0
| #define SIZEOF_CHAR 1
| #define SIZEOF_SHORT 2
| #define SIZEOF_INT 4
| #define SIZEOF_LONG 4
| #define STDC_HEADERS 1
| #define HAVE_FCNTL_H 1
| #define HAVE_STDLIB_H 1
| #define HAVE_STRING_H 1
| #define HAVE_MEMCHR 1
| #define HAVE_STRCHR 1
| #define HAVE_STRSPN 1
| #define HAVE_STRSTR 1
| #define HAVE_STRTOL 1
| #define HAVE_STRTOULL 1
| #define HAVE_BACKTRACE 1
| #define HAVE_BACKTRACE_SYMBOLS 1
| /* end confdefs.h. */
| #include Python.h
configure:13361: result: not found
configure:13363: error: Python headers not found
(...)
Re: [aur-general] Deletion request
On Tue, 2011-02-08 at 19:06 +0100, Krzysztof Raczkowski wrote: Hi, The following packages: - openxencenter (http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=34398) - openxencenter-svn (http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=36074) are replaced by openxenmanager-svn (http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=45800) as upstream switched name from openxencenter to openxenmanager. Why not clear AUR from obsolete ones? Cheers, Done -- Jelle van der Waa signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [aur-general] Moving packages to Community
On Tue, 2011-02-08 at 17:57 +0100, Alexander Rødseth wrote: I would like to add that for some AUR-users, the packages is what they would have to show for if they were to apply to become a TU. As far as I know, the AUR history is not recorded in any accessible way. - Alexander (trontonic on AUR / xyproto on #archlinux) This is a good point, but I'd assume the users in question would have their latest copy of the PKGBUILD on their machine if they wanted to use it in applying. Their name would also be on the PKGBUILD in [community] in any case.
