Re: [aur-general] Deletion request - elilo-git
On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 7:26 AM, Keshav P R wrote: > On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 20:34, Keshav P R wrote: >> On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 19:50, Keshav P R >> wrote: >>> Hi, >>> Please delete elilo-git >>> https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=45565 . It uses my own git >>> mirror of upstram cvs repo as source (no elilo-cvs package). I have >>> created elilo-x86_64 https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=56750 >>> to replace it, which uses upstream release tarballs. Thanks in >>> advance. >>> >>> Regards. >>> >>> Keshav >> >> Also delete grub-legacy-efi-fedora >> https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=47979 , replaced by >> https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=56751 . >> >> - Keshav > > bump^2 The reason nobody is willing to do this is probably because your package is obviously badly named (elilo-x86_64). There is no reason to name the package so. If it is x86_64 only, just put only x86_64 in arch=() instead of any, and just name the package "elilo". If instead x86_64 is a build-only requirement, you should still name the package as just "elilo" and leave the compile time check that you did already put in place. Either way I don't see a valid reason to name it elilo-x86_64, but if you think we missed something, please clarify. Thanks.
Re: [aur-general] Deletion request - elilo-git
On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 13:44, Massimiliano Torromeo wrote: > On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 7:26 AM, Keshav P R > wrote: >> On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 20:34, Keshav P R >> wrote: >>> On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 19:50, Keshav P R >>> wrote: Hi, Please delete elilo-git https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=45565 . It uses my own git mirror of upstram cvs repo as source (no elilo-cvs package). I have created elilo-x86_64 https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=56750 to replace it, which uses upstream release tarballs. Thanks in advance. Regards. Keshav >>> >>> Also delete grub-legacy-efi-fedora >>> https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=47979 , replaced by >>> https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=56751 . >>> >>> - Keshav >> >> bump^2 > > The reason nobody is willing to do this is probably because your > package is obviously badly named (elilo-x86_64). There is no reason to > name the package so. If it is x86_64 only, just put only x86_64 in > arch=() instead of any, and just name the package "elilo". > Have you ever tried uefi booting? Or tried to find out why there are two grub2-efi packages in extra repo. I think https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Unified_Extensible_Firmware_Interface#Detecting_UEFI_Firmware_Arch should answer your question (or https://projects.archlinux.org/svntogit/packages.git/tree/grub2-efi-x86_64/trunk/PKGBUILD). That x86_64 denoted UEFI ARCH which is independent of Kernel ARCH. Same reason for grub-legacy-efi-fedora. > If instead x86_64 is a build-only requirement, you should still name > the package as just "elilo" and leave the compile time check that you > did already put in place. > > Either way I don't see a valid reason to name it elilo-x86_64, but if > you think we missed something, please clarify. > > Thanks. If you wanted clarification you could have asked instead of waiting for me to bump this. I can't read your mind to understand why this was IGNORED. Asking for clarification is ok but ignoring the mail totally is not. It shouldn't take you 3 days + bump to reply to my mail. That's a basic courtesy any one would expect. Some reply to the mail should have been given, especially when you guys have replied to other such removal requests. Regards. Keshav
[aur-general] Signoff report for [community-testing]
=== Signoff report for [community-testing] === https://www.archlinux.org/packages/signoffs/ There are currently: * 1 new package in last 24 hours * 0 known bad packages * 0 packages not accepting signoffs * 0 fully signed off packages * 18 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.) == New packages in [community-testing] in last 24 hours (1 total) == * pigeonhole-0.3.0-1 (i686) == Incomplete signoffs for [community] (18 total) == * dbmail-3.0.0_rc3-1 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * hostapd-0.7.3-6 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * ipvsadm-1.26-3 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * keepalived-1.2.2-3 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * knemo-0.7.3-2 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * libvirt-0.9.10-1 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * netcf-0.1.7-3 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * pigeonhole-0.3.0-1 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * simh-3.8.1-3 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * dbmail-3.0.0_rc3-1 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * hostapd-0.7.3-6 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * ipvsadm-1.26-3 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * keepalived-1.2.2-3 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * knemo-0.7.3-2 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * libvirt-0.9.10-1 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * netcf-0.1.7-3 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * pigeonhole-0.3.0-1 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * simh-3.8.1-3 (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 - 7 signoffs 2. bisson - 4 signoffs 3. dreisner - 2 signoffs 4. plewis - 1 signoffs
Re: [aur-general] Deletion request - elilo-git
On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 9:51 AM, Keshav P R wrote: > On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 13:44, Massimiliano Torromeo > wrote: >> On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 7:26 AM, Keshav P R >> wrote: >>> On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 20:34, Keshav P R >>> wrote: On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 19:50, Keshav P R wrote: > Hi, > Please delete elilo-git > https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=45565 . It uses my own git > mirror of upstram cvs repo as source (no elilo-cvs package). I have > created elilo-x86_64 https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=56750 > to replace it, which uses upstream release tarballs. Thanks in > advance. > > Regards. > > Keshav Also delete grub-legacy-efi-fedora https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=47979 , replaced by https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=56751 . - Keshav >>> >>> bump^2 >> >> The reason nobody is willing to do this is probably because your >> package is obviously badly named (elilo-x86_64). There is no reason to >> name the package so. If it is x86_64 only, just put only x86_64 in >> arch=() instead of any, and just name the package "elilo". >> > > Have you ever tried uefi booting? Or tried to find out why there are > two grub2-efi packages in extra repo. I think > https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Unified_Extensible_Firmware_Interface#Detecting_UEFI_Firmware_Arch > should answer your question (or > https://projects.archlinux.org/svntogit/packages.git/tree/grub2-efi-x86_64/trunk/PKGBUILD). > > That x86_64 denoted UEFI ARCH which is independent of Kernel ARCH. > Same reason for grub-legacy-efi-fedora. No, I did not and that's the reason I didn't feel like I was the best person to handle this, because I suspected I missed something on the subject. Also this are only my reasons, I only guessed that was the problem for the other TUs too. >> If instead x86_64 is a build-only requirement, you should still name >> the package as just "elilo" and leave the compile time check that you >> did already put in place. >> >> Either way I don't see a valid reason to name it elilo-x86_64, but if >> you think we missed something, please clarify. >> >> Thanks. > > If you wanted clarification you could have asked instead of waiting > for me to bump this. I can't read your mind to understand why this was > IGNORED. Asking for clarification is ok but ignoring the mail totally > is not. It shouldn't take you 3 days + bump to reply to my mail. > That's a basic courtesy any one would expect. Some reply to the mail > should have been given, especially when you guys have replied to other > such removal requests. I can only speak for myself, (as I did before) but sometimes I do not reply because I feel like I am not the best person that should handle a problem and I just wait for someone else to take on it. The 3 days + bumps were the signal for me that apparently nobody else wanted to do this, so I stepped up. Ignoring your emails was unintended. Anyway, the packages have been deleted now. Have a nice day.
[aur-general] Deletion Request lirc-utils-git
Hi, Please delete my package lirc-utils-git [1] as this was only created as a quick fix for a compile error and is no longer needed. Alternatively, if anyone thinks this package is of any use, I will just disown. Thanks, Mark [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=49301
Re: [aur-general] Deletion Request lirc-utils-git
On Monday 20 Feb 2012 09:47:12 Mark Foxwell wrote: > Please delete my package lirc-utils-git [1] as this was only created as > a quick fix for a compile error and is no longer needed. > > Alternatively, if anyone thinks this package is of any use, I will just > disown. If it works, IMO it might be useful to keep around, in case other people have a need. Feel free to disown it though, if you don't want to maintain it yourself. Pete.
[aur-general] [Removal request] haveged
Hi, Please delete haveged https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=56025 because it's a duplicate (it's in [community]). Regards, kfgz
Re: [aur-general] [Removal request] haveged
On 02/20/2012 07:39 PM, Krzysztof Grygiencz wrote: > Hi, > > Please delete haveged https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=56025 > because it's a duplicate (it's in [community]). > > > Regards, > kfgz Aww, I probably forgot to remove it after moving into [community]. Thanks! -- Bartłomiej Piotrowski Arch Linux Trusted User http://archlinux.org/ signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
