[aur-general] Signoff report for [community-testing]
=== Signoff report for [community-testing] === https://www.archlinux.org/packages/signoffs/ There are currently: * 0 new packages in last 24 hours * 0 known bad packages * 0 packages not accepting signoffs * 0 fully signed off packages * 3 packages missing signoffs * 2 packages older than 14 days (Note: the word 'package' as used here refers to packages as grouped by pkgbase, architecture, and repository; e.g., one PKGBUILD produces one package per architecture, even if it is a split package.) == Incomplete signoffs for [community] (3 total) == * systemd-arch-units-20120208-1 (any) 0/2 signoffs * dbmail-3.0.0_rc3-1 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * dbmail-3.0.0_rc3-1 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs == All packages in [community-testing] for more than 14 days (2 total) == * dbmail-3.0.0_rc3-1 (i686), since 2012-01-15 * dbmail-3.0.0_rc3-1 (x86_64), since 2012-01-16 == Top five in signoffs in last 24 hours == 1. tomegun - 11 signoffs 2. bisson - 3 signoffs
Re: [aur-general] disowning a couple of packages
On Monday 13 Feb 2012 19:03:55 Thomas Dziedzic wrote: > >> If you plan on adopting sage-mathematics, you should know that it is > >> currently unbuildable on archlinux, and some other newer distros due > >> to how it is built. > >> It is currently out of date, and you wont be able to update it without > >> fixing this. > > Sorry, but I stand by my decision and will not be maintaining sage any > longer. I don't blame you at all, though this is a shame, since the idea of sage was so promising. Perhaps distros and others like us should be making upstream aware of how difficult maintaining it can be, given the way they organise it all, and how this is leading us to drop it from our repos. Apologies if you've already tried this. Pete.
Re: [aur-general] disowning a couple of packages
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 6:40 AM, Peter Lewis wrote: > On Monday 13 Feb 2012 19:03:55 Thomas Dziedzic wrote: >> >> If you plan on adopting sage-mathematics, you should know that it is >> >> currently unbuildable on archlinux, and some other newer distros due >> >> to how it is built. >> >> It is currently out of date, and you wont be able to update it without >> >> fixing this. >> >> Sorry, but I stand by my decision and will not be maintaining sage any >> longer. > > I don't blame you at all, though this is a shame, since the idea of sage was > so promising. > > Perhaps distros and others like us should be making upstream aware of how > difficult maintaining it can be, given the way they organise it all, and how > this is leading us to drop it from our repos. Apologies if you've already > tried this. > > Pete. > I've already talked with upstream a while ago about relying less on internal patched libs/bins and their custom build system. They were strongly opposed to it because they wanted it to work on all systems consistently. Ironically its their system which is making me drop it due to being buggy and unreasonably complicated.
Re: [aur-general] Removal Request
Hi, The packages were both useless, one was an orphan and both homepages were dead. Thanks for reporting and for including links to the packages. Their bits are all flipped and their bytes are erased. Never again shall they see light of day. Completely removed and blown away. This was the last time their steps were retraced. To the AUR basement, they are now chased. -- Cordially, Alexander Rødseth Arch Linux Trusted User (xyproto on IRC, trontonic on AUR)
[aur-general] Removal request: aurorasim-git and tao-framework
Please delete 'aurorasim-git' and 'tao-framework' AUR packages These packages are two of my mistakes. The first one, aurorasim-git, was submitted when I was still a newbie last summer and it was not tested before submission. Even after testing it a while later, it's broken and the Aurora-Sim project is very unkempt as it is so having this package isn't much use. The second one, 'tao-framework', works. However I discovered a little late that another package, 'taoframework' (no hyphen) already exists and seems to do a cleaner job of building and installation. Thank you for your understanding in this matter.
[aur-general] Adopt/orphan request: mingw32-gettext
I would like to request mingw32-gettext be orphaned. The provided email address of the maintainer seems to be no longer valid, as sending a notice to him resulted in a failure delivery notice in my inbox, and mingw32-gettext, although up to date, is in need of PKGBUILD tweaking because the current configuration causes the build stage to fail. Thanks
[aur-general] Remove request:airdrop-ng, airgraph-ng and aircrack-ptw
airdrop-ng and airgraph-ng is duplicated with aircrack-ng-scripts in community. aircrack-ptw has been included into aircrack-ng since version 0.9, and the source link in PKGBUILD has down. airdrop-ng:https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=41584 airgraph-ng:https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=44546 aircrack-ptw:https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=18331
[aur-general] Merge Request: aircrack-ng-cuda to aircrack-ng-cuda-svn
aircrack-ng-cuda is acctually a svn package, so I rename it to aircrack-ng-cuda-svn and uploaded, please merge aircrack-ng-cuda to aircrack-ng-cuda-svn. aircrack-ng-cuda:https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=30958 aircrack-ng-cuda-svn:https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=56686
Re: [aur-general] Removal Request
On 02/14/2012 09:52 PM, Alexander Rødseth wrote: > Their bits are all flipped and their bytes are erased. > Never again shall they see light of day. > Completely removed and blown away. > This was the last time their steps were retraced. > To the AUR basement, they are now chased. > I'm worried about you, my friend… -- Bartłomiej Piotrowski Arch Linux Trusted User http://archlinux.org/ signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [aur-general] Removal Request
Don't worry :) - Alexander
Re: [aur-general] Merge Request: aircrack-ng-cuda to aircrack-ng-cuda-svn
Hi, Ok, deleted+merged. Thanks. -- Cordially, Alexander Rødseth Arch Linux Trusted User (xyproto on IRC, trontonic on AUR)
