[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 * 18 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.) == Incomplete signoffs for [community] (14 total) == * acpi_call-1.1.0-2 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * bbswitch-0.8-6 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * r8168-8.037.00-7 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * rt3562sta-2.4.1.1-52 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * tp_smapi-0.41-44 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * vhba-module-20130607-24 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * virtualbox-modules-4.3.6-5 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * acpi_call-1.1.0-2 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * bbswitch-0.8-6 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * r8168-8.037.00-7 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * rt3562sta-2.4.1.1-52 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * tp_smapi-0.41-44 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * vhba-module-20130607-24 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * virtualbox-modules-4.3.6-5 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs == Incomplete signoffs for [unknown] (4 total) == * libnftnl-1.0.0-1 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * nftables-0.099-1 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * libnftnl-1.0.0-1 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * nftables-0.099-1 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs == Top five in signoffs in last 24 hours == 1. ronald - 3 signoffs 2. lcarlier - 2 signoffs 3. bpiotrowski - 2 signoffs 4. andyrtr - 1 signoffs
Re: [aur-general] Removing stale accounts from the AUR
Nowaker wrote: Maybe all comments older than 2 years should be removed? 2 years old comments are irrelevant regardless of user being currently active or not. I agree that if you are going to remove old comments then you should remove all old comments. I also think that you should remove the votes with the accounts (if possible). Otherwise you end up with a pool of unrescindable votes. Regards, Xyne
Re: [aur-general] Merge request
On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 4:08 PM, David J. Haines djhai...@gmx.com wrote: On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 09:51:11PM +0100, Maxime Gauduin wrote: On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 6:02 PM, David J. Haines djhai...@gmx.com wrote: Hi all, I just took over pioneer and pioneer-git. The way upstream has been releasing things has made it that, under the prior maintainer, pioneer-git was really using upstream's versioning, while pioneer languished under upstream's old versioning system as alpha-something. Please merge pioneer-git (https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/pioneer-git/) into pioneer (https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/pioneer/) so that I can continue forward with just the one. Thanks! -- David J. Haines djhai...@gmx.com 0xAFB3D16D - F929 270F B7C3 78AE A741 434F A7C6 F264 AFB3 D16C I don't think a merge is necessary here. Those 2 packages can coexist, just update pioneer so that it uses the new versioning. BTW, pioneer-git should be updated to use the not so new now VCS source array capabilities. Cheers, -- Maxime Given the freqeuency of releases upstream (in their own words: We release a new version almost every day.), I don't see much of a need for both. If you're unwilling to merge, I'd request instead that pioneer-git be deleted. Thanks, -- David J. Haines djhai...@gmx.com 0xAFB3D16D - F929 270F B7C3 78AE A741 434F A7C6 F264 AFB3 D16C In that case, I'd say using the git version is probably more sensible. Saves you from the trouble of having to update your pioneer PKGBUILD every other day. Having both certainly does not hurt anyway, gives people more options. -- Maxime
Re: [aur-general] Deletion request: opentracker, opentracker-latest, opentracker-open
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 10:24 PM, Jonas Heinrich o...@project-insanity.orgwrote: Hey, please delete following packages because all of them are covered by opentracker-git [1]: - opentracker [2] - opentracker-latest [3] - opentracker-open [4] Thank you and best regards, Jonas :) [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/opentracker-git [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/opentracker/ [3] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/opentracker-latest/ [4] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/opentracker-open/ All taken care of. opentracker was a cvs package in disguise and the other two unneeded dupes. The git package is still very wrong though, left a comment asking for it to be rewritten. -- Maxime
[aur-general] Package of Questionable Legality
Free-cinema [1], appears to be of very questionable legality. It appears that it was designed specifically to be used for pirating movies. I don't know what the protocol is for dealing with this, just thought it was worth reporting. [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/free-cinema/ -- All the best, Sam Stuewe (HalosGhost)
Re: [aur-general] Package of Questionable Legality
On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 5:02 PM, Sam Stuewe halosgh...@archlinux.info wrote: Free-cinema [1], appears to be of very questionable legality. It appears that it was designed specifically to be used for pirating movies. I don't know what the protocol is for dealing with this, just thought it was worth reporting. [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/free-cinema/ -- All the best, Sam Stuewe (HalosGhost) Upstream url: http://kaveensblog.wordpress.com/2014/01/18/pirate-movie-downloader-for-linux-by-me/
Re: [aur-general] Package of Questionable Legality
Free-cinema [1], appears to be of very questionable legality. It appears that it was designed specifically to be used for pirating movies. I don't know what the protocol is for dealing with this, just thought it was worth reporting. Downloading a movie, at least in Poland, is totally legal as long as you own a legal copy. Working DRM around is legal in such case as well. If you want to remove a package that does something illegal, AFAIK Lame MP3 Encoder would have to be removed from the repo because of some patents infringements. -- Kind regards, Damian Nowak StratusHost www.AtlasHost.eu
Re: [aur-general] Package of Questionable Legality
On Sat, Feb 01, 2014 at 06:21:01PM +0100, Nowaker wrote: Downloading a movie, at least in Poland, is totally legal as long as you own a legal copy. Working DRM around is legal in such case as well. The relevant point for the present case of the movie downloading tool is that the upstream source markets it as being *intended* for illegal use. -Jesse AKA 'Trilby'
Re: [aur-general] Removing stale accounts from the AUR
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 31.1.2014 15:34, Nowaker wrote: Can you find an example of a 2 year old comment which is still relevant? Maybe all comments older than 2 years should be removed? 2 years old comments are irrelevant regardless of user being currently active or not. What of comments older than two or more years which comment on packages that haven't been updated upstream for two or more years, and thus haven't been (probably) updated in the AUR for the same amount of time, but are still usable? Delete all packages older than two years? It's a destructive decision... -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJS7XppAAoJEB1x37R9kdwn1QUQAIYyievgIJXsbHPmwmEhn+NR 1brnZ2/jkBb38EAiBiCT2oBnDB/HIIFkGcuqVAEaCgo585Su4/98aQxMPVKY042z kFW3i7xs6XG7TRmkcsgzJ1pJTZ6JKYwBomyxyI6BieZSG0bh0h15ZphPK2ktrwdO D6bYmPWOwhU2oXzBEZ9btfjbAXattFEsNCtDkIlrVQ2EZUd7Uz3NSvWxIcVOFUYU /AKOQEfvuDLz/JAC1zCoHSUhopY40W5FNTYUYIld9hdY7wIbp1hP5hCOrcaXMR0U zu5kLRgnSkhfAlTLdwCO+hJigdw7UmVKrIAAQqX+nh+RUM7vx1uHAcbL7qc3lNQE FcD/gwzOeZflaJRohWJCmvT6GTy8PtMtROgUOLwrQaB0GngJxirlYl+5pV42m03g 76tl8qJiNqwoHGUfWJwMty4fQJ0+pmBtWPNo1N3ZqpVdfIOyI/rX5oXiolS3t6GK oNxC2dg1MH/kRARAKYx71aJhqMl9hgZOGfPWx0j3jwcvNu1kw+y0RCAbc9OfYkt8 YbsS909/s7MQk2pX5OjL3SaRuH97jDUAkK064n2O4pX/pxZdc9JcLs4OMriaGVSt xumbAX+RiGHGO06acIrvBP+4MAwO5g/7YKxAc4eejqgzjq6kr0ys76OpffIIaJLV IGYQzu+e458sd896UYbP =hFtw -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [aur-general] Package of Questionable Legality
[...] so i created this 27 line program to do it for me and it automatically adds the torrent to my torrent client. This package is not and doesn't do any illegal! Though, if you download (via torrent) something your country deems is illegal you're responsible - and if you download (via torrent) something your country doesn't care of, you will be happy using it. It really depends on where you live
[aur-general] AUR Requests
Hi, (Maintainers, if any, are in CC.) Could you please merge: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/python2-imaging/ - https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/python2-imaging-alt/ ** Reason: PIL is being phased out by pillow; 1st is orphan and 2nd one not to be replaced like in [community] Maintainer: please add a replaces=() flag, it should replace python2-imaging and not python-imaging https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/python2-socksipy-branch/ - https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/python2-socks/ https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/python-socksipy-branch/ ** - https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/python-socks/ Reason: socksipy and -branch are dead, socks is maintained and has same API Maintainer: please let me know if you'd like to maintain the new package/why we should keep a dead branch And remove: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/sundials25/ ** Reason: sundials=2.5 current and available, package installs into /usr directly and should not be used Unsure about: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/socksipy/ ** The original socksipy is last updated 2006 and known to have multiple issues that are fixed in the new fork, should we keep this? I tested the dependencies damnvid and polly, and both work with python2-socks ** I am not the maintainer of this package. Please consider giving them some time to respond. I'd be also very happy to orphan the new packages if they like to maintain them. cheers Michael
Re: [aur-general] Removing stale accounts from the AUR
On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 5:51 PM, Никола Вукосављевић hau...@gmx.com wrote:
On 31.1.2014 15:34, Nowaker wrote:
Can you find an example of a 2 year old comment which is still
relevant?
Maybe all comments older than 2 years should be removed? 2 years
old comments are irrelevant regardless of user being currently
active or not.
What of comments older than two or more years which comment on
packages that haven't been updated upstream for two or more years, and
thus haven't been (probably) updated in the AUR for the same amount of
time, but are still usable? Delete all packages older than two years?
It's a destructive decision...
Sure, they might be usable, but I bet a large number of those old
packages very poorly conform to PKGBUILD best practices (e.g. no use
of ${startdir}, no package() function, no pkgver() function for VCS
packages, etc.).
Eventually, pacman will likely be dropping support for PKGBUILD's
without a package() function, so at some point in the future, the TUs
will probably have to do a mass deletion of old packages anyway.
Jason
Re: [aur-general] AUR Requests
On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Michael Schubert mschu@gmail.com wrote: Hi, (Maintainers, if any, are in CC.) Could you please merge: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/python2-imaging/ - https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/python2-imaging-alt/ ** Reason: PIL is being phased out by pillow; 1st is orphan and 2nd one not to be replaced like in [community] Maintainer: please add a replaces=() flag, it should replace python2-imaging and not python-imaging Hi Michael, I will just remove the replaces array in python2-imaging-alt. It's not appropriate/required for the package nowadays anyway. I agree python2-imaging should be deleted or merged into python2-imaging-alt, since when a user installs python2-imaging the next time they go to system update pacman of course offers to replace it with python2-pillow. (Yes I know they /could/ just use IgnorePkg= in pacman.conf) Regards, Rob McCathie (korrode)
Re: [aur-general] Package of Questionable Legality
On 1 February 2014 23:05, Rob Til Freedmen rob.til.freed...@gmail.com wrote: [...] so i created this 27 line program to do it for me and it automatically adds the torrent to my torrent client. This package is not and doesn't do any illegal! Though, if you download (via torrent) something your country deems is illegal you're responsible - and if you download (via torrent) something your country doesn't care of, you will be happy using it. It really depends on where you live I think it depends more on where the AUR is hosted. Lets not forget that the MPAA, seems to think that they can sue anyone, anywhere, for anything they feel adversely affects their profit margins. When somebody markets their software/script/whatever as a pirate movie downloader, I think we should probably avoid packaging it. WorMzy
Re: [aur-general] Package of Questionable Legality
On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 9:52 PM, WorMzy Tykashi wormzy.tyka...@gmail.com wrote: On 1 February 2014 23:05, Rob Til Freedmen rob.til.freed...@gmail.com wrote: [...] so i created this 27 line program to do it for me and it automatically adds the torrent to my torrent client. This package is not and doesn't do any illegal! Though, if you download (via torrent) something your country deems is illegal you're responsible - and if you download (via torrent) something your country doesn't care of, you will be happy using it. It really depends on where you live I think it depends more on where the AUR is hosted. Lets not forget that the MPAA, seems to think that they can sue anyone, anywhere, for anything they feel adversely affects their profit margins. When somebody markets their software/script/whatever as a pirate movie downloader, I think we should probably avoid packaging it. WorMzy Assuming IP geolocation is accurate, the AUR is hosted in Germany. This doesn't matter though. The AUR does not host any software that may or may not be used for copyright infringement. The AUR is simply a collection of build scripts. If free-cinema was in [extra] or [community], then this _might_ be worth investigating because Arch---and its mirrors---would be hosting the software in question. However, considering that libdvdcss is provided in [extra] and dvdbackup is provided in [community], I don't think this is anything for us to be concerned with. Jason
Re: [aur-general] Package of Questionable Legality
On 2014-02-01 21:04, Jason St. John wrote: However, considering that libdvdcss is provided in [extra] and dvdbackup is provided in [community], I don't think this is anything for us to be concerned with. Totally valid point. I am fine with this decision, I just wanted to make sure that the conversation was had :) -- All the best, Sam Stuewe (HalosGhost)
[aur-general] Packaging question
Hi all! So say I have package A which is installed with a Drivers folder under /usr/lib/PACKAGE_A/. This package then would have an optional dependency on another standalone library (pakage B) to provide a certain driver. To make package A work properly with the optional package B, either a symlink or direct copy of a libBBB.so file needs to be made. i.e. /usr/lib/PACKAGE_A/Drivers/libBBB.so - /usr/lib/PACKAGE_B/libBBB.so So my question is, what is the best way to make this happen? Do I provide a *.install file for PACKAGE_A that tries to see if PACKAGE_B exists and then link the files if so? What should happen if PACKAGE_B is installed after PACKAGE_A? For reference PACKAGE_A is openni2 (https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/openni2) and PACKAGE_B is libfreenect-git (https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/libfreenect-git/). Currently they are not tied to each other, but I would like to make it possible for openni2 to optionally? depend on a driver provided by libfreenect. Regards, Andrew
Re: [aur-general] Packaging question
First off, please don't hijack threads in the list; refrain from using reply-to when starting a new discussion! On Sat, Feb 01, 2014 at 11:02:53PM -0700, Andrew DeMaria wrote: Hi all! So say I have package A which is installed with a Drivers folder under /usr/lib/PACKAGE_A/. This package then would have an optional dependency on another standalone library (pakage B) to provide a certain driver. To make package A work properly with the optional package B, either a symlink or direct copy of a libBBB.so file needs to be made. i.e. /usr/lib/PACKAGE_A/Drivers/libBBB.so - /usr/lib/PACKAGE_B/libBBB.so So my question is, what is the best way to make this happen? Do I provide a *.install file for PACKAGE_A that tries to see if PACKAGE_B exists and then link the files if so? What should happen if PACKAGE_B is installed after PACKAGE_A? For reference PACKAGE_A is openni2 (https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/openni2) and PACKAGE_B is libfreenect-git (https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/libfreenect-git/). Currently they are not tied to each other, but I would like to make it possible for openni2 to optionally? depend on a driver provided by libfreenect. In PKGBUILDs you can either depend (place a package in the 'depends' array) on a package, or optionally depend (place a package in the 'optdepends' array) on a package. The crucial thing to realise is that in order to use 'optdepends' the built package must be able to determine at runtime whether the optional dependencies are present and if so make use of them. With this in mind it sounds like what you need is two openni2 packages, one that - doesn't depend on libfreenect-git - configures openni2 at build time to NOT use (i.e. link against) libfreenect and one that - does depend on libfreenect-git - configures openni2 at build to use (i.e. link against) libfreenect /M -- Magnus Therning OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4 email: mag...@therning.org jabber: mag...@therning.org twitter: magthe http://therning.org/magnus 10.0 times 0.1 is hardly ever 1.0. - The Elements of Programming Style (Kernighan Plaugher) signature.asc Description: Digital signature
