[aur-general] Signoff report for [community-testing]
=== Signoff report for [community-testing] === https://www.archlinux.org/packages/signoffs/ There are currently: * 2 new packages in last 24 hours * 0 known bad packages * 0 packages not accepting signoffs * 0 fully signed off packages * 2 packages missing signoffs * 0 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 (2 total) == * ibus-chewing-1.4.4-1 (i686) * ibus-chewing-1.4.4-1 (x86_64) == Incomplete signoffs for [community] (2 total) == * ibus-chewing-1.4.4-1 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * ibus-chewing-1.4.4-1 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs == Top five in signoffs in last 24 hours == 1. bisson - 4 signoffs 2. thomas - 2 signoffs
[aur-general] Can we force the maintainer to change package name?
https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/rstudio/ is something entirely different than every other 'rstudio' package https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/?K=rstudio A few users suggested name change. Can we force the maintainer to change package name? Does the package have to be properly disowned and reuploaded with a different name?
[aur-general] Bundled applications policy?
Hi, What is the policy regarding collection/amalgamation packages? 'manarchy' [1] is just a recent beta version of aircrack-ng (stable version in community) and an updated version of 'theharvester' [2] bundled together. Should [1] be removed/merged into [2], or should it split up into individual packages, or is it perfectly acceptable to have packages like this? Cheers, WorMzy [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/manarchy/ [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/theharvester/
[aur-general] Removal request
Hi. This is about my libcvp11 package: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/libcvp11/ The binary blob source files now 404 and are nowhere to be found online. I no longer have a use for this package, as opensc from [community] seems to provide a working free-software alternative. I still have a local copy of the zip file, but: - binaries in a source package are not encouraged - everything around this driver seems shady - the package has 0 votes, so likely no one else has/had a need for it - I'd rather not host such a blob on a server of mine for no good reason (the free-software driver works for me) Based on all that, I think this should be deleted. Regards
Re: [aur-general] Can we force the maintainer to change package name?
On 20 December 2013 01:11, Karol Blazewicz karol.blazew...@gmail.com wrote: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/rstudio/ is something entirely different than every other 'rstudio' package https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/?K=rstudio A few users suggested name change. I was fooled for a second. I thought this was just another R Studio. Can we force the maintainer to change package name? Does the package have to be properly disowned and reuploaded with a different name? Yeah, they have to conform to existing naming schemes. I say rename it to r-studio, though that doesn't really look that much more helpful. -- GPG/PGP ID: C0711BF1
Re: [aur-general] Bundled applications policy?
On 20 December 2013 01:36, WorMzy Tykashi wormzy.tyka...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, What is the policy regarding collection/amalgamation packages? 'manarchy' [1] is just a recent beta version of aircrack-ng (stable version in community) and an updated version of 'theharvester' [2] bundled together. Should [1] be removed/merged into [2], or should it split up into individual packages, or is it perfectly acceptable to have packages like this? Just provide for and conflict with the relevant packages and you don't give anyone any trouble. Alternatively, you could package up the beta version of the dep. But if this whole thing is a package of a real software collection (and not just a mash-up by a packager) then I see no problem. -- GPG/PGP ID: C0711BF1
Re: [aur-general] Bundled applications policy?
On 19 December 2013 18:44, Rashif Ray Rahman sc...@archlinux.org wrote: Just provide for and conflict with the relevant packages and you don't give anyone any trouble. It's halfway there, it doesn't conflict with or provide theharvester package, though that's something I was going to mention when I comment about some changes they should make to the PKGBUILD (shouldn't be an 'any' package, binaries shouldn't be in /usr/sbin, etc.). I just wanted to check that such packages are allowed before prompting them to fix it up. But if this whole thing is a package of a real software collection (and not just a mash-up by a packager) then I see no problem. It's the latter, the package pulls from two different, unrelated sources and merges them into one package. The only thing is, neither source is otherwise available on the AUR or official repositories (as far as I can tell). WorMzy
Re: [aur-general] Can we force the maintainer to change package name?
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 7:35 PM, Rashif Ray Rahman sc...@archlinux.org wrote: On 20 December 2013 01:11, Karol Blazewicz karol.blazew...@gmail.com wrote: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/rstudio/ is something entirely different than every other 'rstudio' package https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/?K=rstudio A few users suggested name change. I was fooled for a second. I thought this was just another R Studio. I'm guilty of not reading the package description too: https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?pid=1361971#p1361971 Can we force the maintainer to change package name? Does the package have to be properly disowned and reuploaded with a different name? Yeah, they have to conform to existing naming schemes. I say rename it to r-studio, though that doesn't really look that much more helpful. I can e-mail the maintainer and we can wait the customary 2 weeks, but what exactly should I tell him? He did provide a description, so maybe uploading an r-studio package using the PKGBUILD provided by gbc921 would be enough? -- GPG/PGP ID: C0711BF1
Re: [aur-general] Disown a number of ruby-* packages
Hi On Sun, Dec 15, 2013 at 11:52 PM, Felix Yan felixonm...@gmail.com wrote: On Sunday, December 15, 2013 23:24:34 Anatol Pomozov wrote: snip Meanwhile I mostly cleaned the recent gem packages and ready to take more. Please disown following packages from kidoz (the same person as before): https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/ruby-gruff/ https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/ruby-irc/ https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/ruby-journey/ https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/ruby-kramdown/ https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/ruby-mkrf/ https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/ruby-opengl/ https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/ruby-rack-cache/ https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/ruby-rack-mount/ https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/ruby-rack-ssl/ https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/ruby-rake-compiler/ https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/ruby-ronn/ https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/ruby-rubyforge/ https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/ruby-sdl/ https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/ruby-webgen/ https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/ruby-xmpp4r/ Updated and properly constructed/named rails-2 packages have been added, please merge outdated kidoz' packages: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/ruby-actionmailer2xx/ into https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/ruby-actionmailer-2/ https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/ruby-actionpack2xx/ into https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/ruby-actionpack-2/ https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/ruby-activerecord2xx/ into https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/ruby-activerecord-2/ https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/ruby-activeresource2xx/ into https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/ruby-activeresource-2/ https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/ruby-activesupport2xx/ into https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/ruby-activesupport-2/ https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/ruby-rack110/ https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/ruby-rack1xx/ both merge into https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/ruby-rack-1.1/ https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/ruby-rails2xx/ https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/ruby-rails2xx-aio/ both merge into https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/ruby-rails-2/ Thanks!
[aur-general] Deletion Request: gtkparasite
Apparently, someone just uploaded it and then orphaned it, perhaps he noticed that there have been a git package which is exactly the same as his. https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/gtkparasite/
Re: [aur-general] Deletion Request: gtkparasite
On Friday, December 20, 2013 09:47:48 郑文辉 wrote: Apparently, someone just uploaded it and then orphaned it, perhaps he noticed that there have been a git package which is exactly the same as his. https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/gtkparasite/ Removed, thanks. Regards, Felix Yan signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [aur-general] Merge request: spark-git into sparklines-git (was: spark vs. spark)
Ping. J. Leclanche On Sun, Dec 15, 2013 at 3:45 PM, Jerome Leclanche adys...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Aug 17, 2013 at 10:10 PM, Jonathan Steel m...@jsteel.org wrote: On Wed 14 Aug 2013 at 19:32, Jerome Leclanche wrote: [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/spark/ [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/spark-git/ Conflict is avoided here because [1] has a -svn package, but it's still very confusing and should probably be renamed. Any suggestions? Ask the maintainer to change it, either in the comments or send them an email. -- Jonathan Steel I took care of this a little while ago after some discussion upstream. Please merge https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/spark-git/ into https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/sparklines-git/ J. Leclanche
Re: [aur-general] Merge request: spark-git into sparklines-git (was: spark vs. spark)
On Friday, December 20, 2013 03:25:15 Jerome Leclanche wrote: Ping. J. Leclanche On Sun, Dec 15, 2013 at 3:45 PM, Jerome Leclanche adys...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Aug 17, 2013 at 10:10 PM, Jonathan Steel m...@jsteel.org wrote: On Wed 14 Aug 2013 at 19:32, Jerome Leclanche wrote: [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/spark/ [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/spark-git/ Conflict is avoided here because [1] has a -svn package, but it's still very confusing and should probably be renamed. Any suggestions? Ask the maintainer to change it, either in the comments or send them an email. -- Jonathan Steel I took care of this a little while ago after some discussion upstream. Please merge https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/spark-git/ into https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/sparklines-git/ J. Leclanche Merged, thanks. Regards, Felix Yan signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [aur-general] Removal request
On Thursday, December 19, 2013 19:45:16 Slavi Pantaleev wrote: Hi. This is about my libcvp11 package: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/libcvp11/ The binary blob source files now 404 and are nowhere to be found online. I no longer have a use for this package, as opensc from [community] seems to provide a working free-software alternative. I still have a local copy of the zip file, but: - binaries in a source package are not encouraged - everything around this driver seems shady - the package has 0 votes, so likely no one else has/had a need for it - I'd rather not host such a blob on a server of mine for no good reason (the free-software driver works for me) Based on all that, I think this should be deleted. Regards Removed, thanks. Regards, Felix Yan signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
