[aur-general] Deletion request
Hello, Please delete [1], as I removed the code from GitHub and thus, the source is not available anymore. Thanks in advance, Jente [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/gxms-git/
Re: [aur-general] Merge request
On 2013-12-12 14:21, John D Jones III wrote: > On 12/12/13 09:12, Hugo Osvaldo Barrera wrote: > >Hi, > > > >Can we merge lightning-bin into thunderbird-lightning-bin? > > > >Thanks! > > > I would prefer to see it merged the other way around... > > -- > Thanks, > John D Jones III > UNIX Zealot; Perl Lover > unixgeek1...@gmail.com > jnbek1...@gmail.com > http://zoelife4u.org/ Why is that? I recently saw a couple of packages renamed to match this format, that's why I put in this merge request. (eg: enigmail) In all honesty, though, we should have a standard for naming packages which are plugins to other packages. -- Hugo Osvaldo Barrera pgp0VDkN8ECdv.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [aur-general] TU resignation
Thanks for all you did and all the best for whatever you do now. PS: I've created a ticket for key revocation and disabled the ssh account. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
[aur-general] TU resignation
Hi everyone, I've been pretty busy lately and haven't been able to find the time to fix bugs and keep my packages up-to-date. Lately I haven't actually been using any of the packages I maintain, so I think the time has come to pass them on to someone with the time and motivation to maintain them. So, without further ado, I hereby tender my resignation as a TU. I wish you all the best and hope you continue doing the things which make Arch so great. Best, Jonathan P.S. I've had trouble getting GPG and gmail to play together, so I've attached the contents of this message and signed that instead of signing the email itself. -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi everyone, I've been pretty busy lately and haven't been able to find the time to fix bugs and keep my packages up-to-date. Lately I haven't actually been using any of the packages I maintain, so I think the time has come to pass them on to someone with the time and motivation to maintain them. So, without further ado, I hereby tender my resignation as a TU. I wish you all the best and hope you continue doing the things which make Arch so great. Best, Jonathan -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJStKaEAAoJEK9+94c8/Uu26OYIAIlPKg7TbXCLmpFlwgsE3i/h wBCzQnx7MCGNgBAZ3eDdFJR4txhZOtt740aO8O4ZhihUed/YR0lJwb72C6qP4dcf u5OIFFEdHF+iZqJ+34hPD7QkmVJUYxs+f5xeBlK4ETYNo3mtOU/SreyLLj7yviLG jz2e20tFK0sfOyeglKKJpMC8EOzn2ARufLPlZxV8TFUj0pN2uSOoT2Gm6Ifj2KRn SNv3PpZDitRwMfWRbxMOCSvHl8+KAKZwzKloEThSPFAzrjuSWyWb2+poDwE4YcRL McMBEyqC6jQNA0BTpZ6R3XYNbwgwFllkHij+ONKn4xd5R5Nrq7sRYzgGrZNUplA= =dxpV -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [aur-general] Can we force the maintainer to change package name?
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 3:19 PM, Lukas Jirkovsky wrote: > On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 2:24 PM, Rashif Ray Rahman > wrote: >> Since there was no 'rstudio' at the time that user uploaded this one, >> there is no infringement of any rule or guideline per se. Just tell >> them to upload an 'r-studio' to mitigate the confusion that resulted >> from it. I don't think there is any need to merge unless there were >> relevant comments. It is up to the maintainer to update the PKGBUILD >> with the suggested changes. > > The question is whether the maintainer is still active at all. Hist > last action is 2012-08-27 and he has only two packages, both over the > year old with one being flagged out of date since February. > > Lukas e-mail sent. If he doesn't respond in two weeks, maybe a TU can reupload and disown it, or remove it from the AUR altogether, whichever is deemed the correct action.
Re: [aur-general] Can we force the maintainer to change package name?
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 2:24 PM, Rashif Ray Rahman wrote: > Since there was no 'rstudio' at the time that user uploaded this one, > there is no infringement of any rule or guideline per se. Just tell > them to upload an 'r-studio' to mitigate the confusion that resulted > from it. I don't think there is any need to merge unless there were > relevant comments. It is up to the maintainer to update the PKGBUILD > with the suggested changes. The question is whether the maintainer is still active at all. Hist last action is 2012-08-27 and he has only two packages, both over the year old with one being flagged out of date since February. Lukas
Re: [aur-general] Disown a number of ruby-* packages
On Thursday, December 19, 2013 14:52:09 Anatol Pomozov wrote: > 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/ All merged, thanks! Regards, Felix Yan signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [aur-general] Bundled applications policy?
On 20 December 2013 04:20, WorMzy Tykashi wrote: > On 19 December 2013 18:44, Rashif Ray Rahman 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). A better way to rephrase what I meant is this: if it's a useful bundle that people will use (if some people find the beta dep better), then there is no problem. The "Arch way" would be to provide a separate package for the beta dep instead, but you can tell if your idea (of bundling) is working if nobody says anything about that. -- GPG/PGP ID: C0711BF1
Re: [aur-general] Can we force the maintainer to change package name?
On 20 December 2013 06:42, Karol Blazewicz wrote: > On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 7:35 PM, Rashif Ray Rahman > wrote: >> On 20 December 2013 01:11, Karol Blazewicz 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? Since there was no 'rstudio' at the time that user uploaded this one, there is no infringement of any rule or guideline per se. Just tell them to upload an 'r-studio' to mitigate the confusion that resulted from it. I don't think there is any need to merge unless there were relevant comments. It is up to the maintainer to update the PKGBUILD with the suggested changes. -- GPG/PGP ID: C0711BF1
[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 * 1 package 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 (1 total) == * goagent-3.1.1-2 (any) == Incomplete signoffs for [community] (1 total) == * goagent-3.1.1-2 (any) 0/2 signoffs == Top five in signoffs in last 24 hours == 1. bisson - 2 signoffs 2. bpiotrowski - 1 signoffs
