Re: [aur-general] virtualbox-extension-pack vs. virtualbox-ext-oracle
Laurent Carlier on Mon, 2014/08/04 23:11:
> Le lundi 4 août 2014, 18:15:32 Christian Hesse a écrit :
> > Hello everybody,
> >
> > following a lengthy discussion sublu just deleted my package
> > virtualbox-extension-pack from AUR. This is what his package
> > (virtualbox-ext-oracle) does:
> >
> > * Install an archive file.
> > * Use install script to copy a number of files to /usr without pacman
> > knowing about it.
> >
> > I think this is the wrong way, so I created my own package
> > (virtualbox-extension-pack) that tries to get it right:
> >
> > * Just install the files required, "ready to use" for virtualbox.
> > * No crappy install script required!
> >
> > My package had about 75 votes IIRC, probably there would have been more if
> > more people knew about the details. The discussing had a number of
> > comments that agreed about my opinion regarding installing/coping files
> > to /usr with pacman or the install script.
> >
> > Although I think it is wrong seblu is free to provide his package via AUR.
> > But is there any good reason mine is not allowed to reside there?
>
> I've checked both packages, then i've also checked virtualbox
> documentation. Documentation is available at
> http://www.virtualbox.org/manual/
> * Ch8.36. VBoxManage extpack *
> < packs, as described in Section 1.5, “Installing VirtualBox and extension
> packs”.>>
> In regards of VirtualBox docs, Seblu is installing extension pack the
> proper way.
Mozilla provides a tarball named firefox-31.0.tar.bz2. We could make pacman
install that, then use the install script to extract the package and run
install.sh. No?
What upstream recommends is a way that should work on all distribution,
ignoring the distribution's tools. I do not think this is the way to follow if
we can get it better. Files in /usr should be tracked by pacman, with some
really rare exceptions only. In my opinion virtualbox or its dependencies are
not.
> Your package isn't following upstream way to install extension package and
> you are not sure it will keep working, you are just lucky.
I can update my package whenever upstream changes how things work. So what?
Packages are modified all the time.
> Your package is only a duplicated package of seblu's one, only differing on
> the way to install extension pack files isn't a good reason enough. Seblu
> was right to remove your package, there was an explanation before
> suppressing, rules were followed.
>
> Nothing more to say.
I do not agree.
This is pretty stupid. My package does not hurt anybody and a lot of people
do want to use it.
--
main(a){char*c=/*Schoene Gruesse */"B?IJj;MEH"
"CX:;",b;for(a/*Chris get my mail address:*/=0;b=c[a++];)
putchar(b-1/(/* gcc -o sig sig.c && ./sig*/b/42*2-3)*42);}
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Re: [aur-general] Compiz package naming
...and did we decide if we're using "-legacy" or "0.8" in the names of the legacy 0.8 series packages? I can make all new 0.8 packages with the changes, submit them, make the merge requests, then disown them (and the original maintainers can take them back, or whatever), if it makes things easier. -- Regards, Rob McCathie On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 6:58 AM, Charles Bos wrote: > The merger has taken place for both packages. > > > On 4 August 2014 14:31, Charles Bos wrote: > >> Ok folks. As there have been no comments over the weekend I've uploaded >> compiz and compiz-bzr: >> >> https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/compiz/ >> https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/compiz-bzr/ >> >> I've filed requests that compiz-core-devel be merged with compiz and >> compiz-core-bzr be merged with compiz-bzr. >> >> Regards >> >> >> On 1 August 2014 15:04, Charles Bos wrote: >> >>> @/dev/rs0 Understood. I'll happily take over maintenance. It makes sense >>> to have the two packages standardised. >>> >>> @all If alucryd or anyone else doesn't raise any objections by Monday >>> then I'll upload compiz and compiz-bzr and request compiz-core-devel and >>> compiz-core-bzr be merged into them. >>> >>> Is that acceptable for everybody? >>> >>> Regards >>> >>> >>> On 31 July 2014 20:49, Colin Robinson wrote: >>> I totally agree with you. I was just pointing out why the packages are named the way they are. Please change them unless alucryd wants to weigh in on the discussion. On 07/31/2014 08:36 PM, Rob McCathie wrote: > Guess i'll stop bottom posting when everyone else is top posting :P > > > On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 4:20 AM, Colin Robinson > wrote: > >> Comment by alucryd 2014-04-02 07:25 >> "beardedlinuxgeek: Wrong, the latest stable branch is 0.8.x, the 0.9.x >> branch is unstable. >> > This is simply incorrect, as i've explained earlier. > > > Comment by alucryd 2014-04-01 08:1 >> "Merged a few bzr packages into this one. Could you upload it as >> 'compiz-core-bzr', all other distros use the 'compiz-core' name. I'll >> do the >> merge afterwards." >> > Meh. Upstream doesn't recognise the concept of "compiz-core" since the > 0.9 series. Do we comply with upstream or do we comply with other > distros? Methinks upstream. > > > Sidenote: > >> http://www.paradoxcomputers.com.au/arch/packages/compiz-0. >> 9.11.2-1.src.tar.gz >> > After some things were noticed and some discussion had in the > compiz-core-bzr comments, this package has been updated and anyone > reviewing it should re-download it. > > > -- > Regards, > Rob McCathie > > > Comment by beardedlinuxgeek 2014-04-02 07:39 >> "This package isn't compiz-core. It's compiz-core + all the plugins + >> ccsm + >> the gtk decorator + the kde decorator. Take a look at the components >> (http://releases.compiz.org/components/), compiz-core is just one of >> 17 >> packages. This package, on the other hand, is all of them" >> >> --- >> >> So obviously I support korrode's new naming scheme of changing things >> back >> to how they were originally named. It doesn't matter to me if you >> rename >> compiz-core to compiz-legacy-core or compiz0.8-core, but the word >> "core" >> needs to be dropped from all the 0.9x packages. >> >> >> On 07/31/2014 06:40 PM, /dev/rs0 wrote: >> >>> Hi Charles, >>> >>> I think it makes more sense for you to take over my package. >>> >>> As I mentioned, it's basically a derivative of the bzr package. I do >>> enjoy >>> maintaining packages but I figured, as the bzr package receives >>> development, >>> it would be simple enough for you to apply any changes to both >>> packages >>> instead of always going through me. >>> >>> On 07/31/2014 06:58 AM, Charles Bos wrote: >>> Hello all, So I'm just wondering if the change should go ahead now as the idea has been floating around for nearly a week and nobody has raised objections. Regarding the 0.9 bzr package, that would involve me uploading compiz-bzr and then requesting compiz-core-bzr be merged. Regarding the stable package, someone should upload the package korrode made and ask for compiz-core-devel to be merged into it. /dev/sr0, what are your feelings on continuing to maintain your package? If you want to continue maintenance then you should be the one to upload the korrode's package and ask for the merger. If you're sure you would prefer me to take over as you suggested earlier then please let me know and then we know where we stand. On the subje
Re: [aur-general] virtualbox-extension-pack vs. virtualbox-ext-oracle
Even if the script is the recommended way, shouldn't the package be designed so that it will track all of its files? Having a post install script that places files through your filesystem feels like a dirty hack at the best of times. Regards, Justin Dray E: jus...@dray.be M: 0433348284 On 05/08/2014 7:13 am, "Laurent Carlier" wrote: > Le lundi 4 août 2014, 18:15:32 Christian Hesse a écrit : > > Hello everybody, > > > > following a lengthy discussion sublu just deleted my package > > virtualbox-extension-pack from AUR. This is what his package > > (virtualbox-ext-oracle) does: > > > > * Install an archive file. > > * Use install script to copy a number of files to /usr without pacman > > knowing about it. > > > > I think this is the wrong way, so I created my own package > > (virtualbox-extension-pack) that tries to get it right: > > > > * Just install the files required, "ready to use" for virtualbox. > > * No crappy install script required! > > > > My package had about 75 votes IIRC, probably there would have been more > if > > more people knew about the details. The discussing had a number of > comments > > that agreed about my opinion regarding installing/coping files to /usr > with > > pacman or the install script. > > > > Although I think it is wrong seblu is free to provide his package via > AUR. > > But is there any good reason mine is not allowed to reside there? > > I've checked both packages, then i've also checked virtualbox > documentation. > Documentation is available at http://www.virtualbox.org/manual/ > * Ch8.36. VBoxManage extpack * > < packs, as described in Section 1.5, “Installing VirtualBox and extension > packs”.>> > In regards of VirtualBox docs, Seblu is installing extension pack the > proper > way. > > Your package isn't following upstream way to install extension package and > you > are not sure it will keep working, you are just lucky. > > Your package is only a duplicated package of seblu's one, only differing > on the > way to install extension pack files isn't a good reason enough. Seblu was > right > to remove your package, there was an explanation before suppressing, rules > were followed. > > Nothing more to say. > -- > Laurent Carlier > http://www.archlinux.org
Re: [aur-general] virtualbox-extension-pack vs. virtualbox-ext-oracle
Le lundi 4 août 2014, 18:15:32 Christian Hesse a écrit : > Hello everybody, > > following a lengthy discussion sublu just deleted my package > virtualbox-extension-pack from AUR. This is what his package > (virtualbox-ext-oracle) does: > > * Install an archive file. > * Use install script to copy a number of files to /usr without pacman > knowing about it. > > I think this is the wrong way, so I created my own package > (virtualbox-extension-pack) that tries to get it right: > > * Just install the files required, "ready to use" for virtualbox. > * No crappy install script required! > > My package had about 75 votes IIRC, probably there would have been more if > more people knew about the details. The discussing had a number of comments > that agreed about my opinion regarding installing/coping files to /usr with > pacman or the install script. > > Although I think it is wrong seblu is free to provide his package via AUR. > But is there any good reason mine is not allowed to reside there? I've checked both packages, then i've also checked virtualbox documentation. Documentation is available at http://www.virtualbox.org/manual/ * Ch8.36. VBoxManage extpack * <> In regards of VirtualBox docs, Seblu is installing extension pack the proper way. Your package isn't following upstream way to install extension package and you are not sure it will keep working, you are just lucky. Your package is only a duplicated package of seblu's one, only differing on the way to install extension pack files isn't a good reason enough. Seblu was right to remove your package, there was an explanation before suppressing, rules were followed. Nothing more to say. -- Laurent Carlier http://www.archlinux.org signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [aur-general] Compiz package naming
The merger has taken place for both packages. On 4 August 2014 14:31, Charles Bos wrote: > Ok folks. As there have been no comments over the weekend I've uploaded > compiz and compiz-bzr: > > https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/compiz/ > https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/compiz-bzr/ > > I've filed requests that compiz-core-devel be merged with compiz and > compiz-core-bzr be merged with compiz-bzr. > > Regards > > > On 1 August 2014 15:04, Charles Bos wrote: > >> @/dev/rs0 Understood. I'll happily take over maintenance. It makes sense >> to have the two packages standardised. >> >> @all If alucryd or anyone else doesn't raise any objections by Monday >> then I'll upload compiz and compiz-bzr and request compiz-core-devel and >> compiz-core-bzr be merged into them. >> >> Is that acceptable for everybody? >> >> Regards >> >> >> On 31 July 2014 20:49, Colin Robinson wrote: >> >>> I totally agree with you. I was just pointing out why the packages are >>> named the way they are. Please change them unless alucryd wants to weigh in >>> on the discussion. >>> >>> >>> On 07/31/2014 08:36 PM, Rob McCathie wrote: >>> Guess i'll stop bottom posting when everyone else is top posting :P On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 4:20 AM, Colin Robinson wrote: > Comment by alucryd 2014-04-02 07:25 > "beardedlinuxgeek: Wrong, the latest stable branch is 0.8.x, the 0.9.x > branch is unstable. > This is simply incorrect, as i've explained earlier. Comment by alucryd 2014-04-01 08:1 > "Merged a few bzr packages into this one. Could you upload it as > 'compiz-core-bzr', all other distros use the 'compiz-core' name. I'll > do the > merge afterwards." > Meh. Upstream doesn't recognise the concept of "compiz-core" since the 0.9 series. Do we comply with upstream or do we comply with other distros? Methinks upstream. Sidenote: > http://www.paradoxcomputers.com.au/arch/packages/compiz-0. > 9.11.2-1.src.tar.gz > After some things were noticed and some discussion had in the compiz-core-bzr comments, this package has been updated and anyone reviewing it should re-download it. -- Regards, Rob McCathie Comment by beardedlinuxgeek 2014-04-02 07:39 > "This package isn't compiz-core. It's compiz-core + all the plugins + > ccsm + > the gtk decorator + the kde decorator. Take a look at the components > (http://releases.compiz.org/components/), compiz-core is just one of > 17 > packages. This package, on the other hand, is all of them" > > --- > > So obviously I support korrode's new naming scheme of changing things > back > to how they were originally named. It doesn't matter to me if you > rename > compiz-core to compiz-legacy-core or compiz0.8-core, but the word > "core" > needs to be dropped from all the 0.9x packages. > > > On 07/31/2014 06:40 PM, /dev/rs0 wrote: > >> Hi Charles, >> >> I think it makes more sense for you to take over my package. >> >> As I mentioned, it's basically a derivative of the bzr package. I do >> enjoy >> maintaining packages but I figured, as the bzr package receives >> development, >> it would be simple enough for you to apply any changes to both >> packages >> instead of always going through me. >> >> On 07/31/2014 06:58 AM, Charles Bos wrote: >> >>> Hello all, >>> >>> So I'm just wondering if the change should go ahead now as the idea >>> has >>> been floating around for nearly a week and nobody has raised >>> objections. >>> Regarding the 0.9 bzr package, that would involve me uploading >>> compiz-bzr >>> and then requesting compiz-core-bzr be merged. >>> >>> Regarding the stable package, someone should upload the package >>> korrode >>> made and ask for compiz-core-devel to be merged into it. >>> >>> /dev/sr0, what are your feelings on continuing to maintain your >>> package? >>> If >>> you want to continue maintenance then you should be the one to >>> upload the >>> korrode's package and ask for the merger. If you're sure you would >>> prefer >>> me to take over as you suggested earlier then please let me know and >>> then >>> we know where we stand. >>> >>> On the subject of the stable package, a tarball for 0.9.11.2 has been >>> released on launchpad.net >>> >>> Regards >>> >>> >>> On 27 July 2014 14:11, Charles Bos wrote: >>> >>> That's great korrode. Thanks. :) Is everyone agreed vis-a-vis the new name scheme? I only ask because a TU seemed to have other ideas regarding Compiz package naming consistency - I for instance was asked to rename compiz-bzr to compiz-core-bzr.
Re: [aur-general] TU resignation.
On Mon, Aug 04, 2014 at 05:41:42PM +0100, Peter Lewis wrote: > Hi all, > > I had hoped it wouldn't come to this, but based on mounting evidence, > I've come to the conclusion that I should resign as a TU. Most of you > probably already forgot I was here, and I'm sorry that I just haven't > been able to keep on top of things and participate lately. > > A lot has happened with me over the last year: became a father, got a > new job, moved house... and I'm realising that my life has changed such > that I haven't found time to keep up with Arch / TU duties. > > I'm still a day-to-day Archer at work and home, and don't see that > changing any time. And it's great to have been part of such a talented > and welcoming team. Thanks to all of you for the effort you put in to > keeping Arch the great distribution it is. > > Cheers, > > Pete. First of all: congratulations on becoming a father, enjoy all the time you can get with your kid(s). Thanks for your contributions to this great distribution. Enjoy life and Arch :) -- Ike pgpbVSXHQwVLC.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [aur-general] TU resignation.
Congrats on what sounds like several bits of good news! On 2014-08-04 17:41 +0100 Peter Lewis wrote: >Hi all, > >I had hoped it wouldn't come to this, but based on mounting evidence, >I've come to the conclusion that I should resign as a TU. Most of you >probably already forgot I was here, and I'm sorry that I just haven't >been able to keep on top of things and participate lately. > >A lot has happened with me over the last year: became a father, got a >new job, moved house... and I'm realising that my life has changed such >that I haven't found time to keep up with Arch / TU duties. > >I'm still a day-to-day Archer at work and home, and don't see that >changing any time. And it's great to have been part of such a talented >and welcoming team. Thanks to all of you for the effort you put in to >keeping Arch the great distribution it is. > >Cheers, > >Pete.
Re: [aur-general] TU resignation.
Am 04.08.2014 um 18:41 schrieb Peter Lewis: Hi all, I had hoped it wouldn't come to this, but based on mounting evidence, I've come to the conclusion that I should resign as a TU. Most of you probably already forgot I was here, and I'm sorry that I just haven't been able to keep on top of things and participate lately. A lot has happened with me over the last year: became a father, got a new job, moved house... and I'm realising that my life has changed such that I haven't found time to keep up with Arch / TU duties. I'm still a day-to-day Archer at work and home, and don't see that changing any time. And it's great to have been part of such a talented and welcoming team. Thanks to all of you for the effort you put in to keeping Arch the great distribution it is. Cheers, Pete. Hello, very good reasons indeed. All the best to you and your family. And when time has come, come back and sponsor your son/daughter :) Best wishes Stefan
Re: [aur-general] TU resignation.
On Mon, 04 Aug 2014, Thorsten Töpper wrote: > well with all this you mention here it doesn't sound too bad so have > fun and I hope you enjoy it. :-) Thanks, Thorsten. All is indeed well :-) Pete.
Re: [aur-general] TU resignation.
On Mon, 4 Aug 2014 17:41:42 +0100 Peter Lewis wrote: > Hi all, > > I had hoped it wouldn't come to this, but based on mounting evidence, > I've come to the conclusion that I should resign as a TU. Most of you > probably already forgot I was here, and I'm sorry that I just haven't > been able to keep on top of things and participate lately. > > A lot has happened with me over the last year: became a father, got a > new job, moved house... and I'm realising that my life has changed > such that I haven't found time to keep up with Arch / TU duties. > > I'm still a day-to-day Archer at work and home, and don't see that > changing any time. And it's great to have been part of such a talented > and welcoming team. Thanks to all of you for the effort you put in to > keeping Arch the great distribution it is. > > Cheers, > > Pete. Hi Peter, well with all this you mention here it doesn't sound too bad so have fun and I hope you enjoy it. :-) Cheers, Thorsten signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [aur-general] virtualbox-extension-pack vs. virtualbox-ext-oracle
Hi, I didn't vote for any package I'm using from AUR. Perhaps it's a mistake. Here the package of choice is virtualbox-extension-pack. $ pacman -Q virtualbox-extension-pack virtualbox-extension-pack 4.3.12-1 $ ls /var/cache/aur/virtualbox-extension-pack* /var/cache/aur/virtualbox-extension-pack-4.3.10-2-x86_64.pkg.tar.xz /var/cache/aur/virtualbox-extension-pack-4.3.12-1-x86_64.pkg.tar.xz /var/cache/aur/virtualbox-extension-pack-4.3.14-1-x86_64.pkg.tar.xz /var/cache/aur/virtualbox-extension-pack-4.3.14-2-x86_64.pkg.tar.xz Currently downgraded regarding to https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/41424 . The package shouldn't be deleted. Regards, Ralf -- The natural scientists Fritz Haber, Otto Hahn, James Franck and Gustav Hertz established poison gas for military usage and later they were decorated with the Nobelpreis.
[aur-general] TU resignation.
Hi all, I had hoped it wouldn't come to this, but based on mounting evidence, I've come to the conclusion that I should resign as a TU. Most of you probably already forgot I was here, and I'm sorry that I just haven't been able to keep on top of things and participate lately. A lot has happened with me over the last year: became a father, got a new job, moved house... and I'm realising that my life has changed such that I haven't found time to keep up with Arch / TU duties. I'm still a day-to-day Archer at work and home, and don't see that changing any time. And it's great to have been part of such a talented and welcoming team. Thanks to all of you for the effort you put in to keeping Arch the great distribution it is. Cheers, Pete.
Re: [aur-general] virtualbox-extension-pack vs. virtualbox-ext-oracle
On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 6:15 PM, Christian Hesse wrote: > My package had about 75 votes IIRC, probably there would have been more if > more people knew about the details. The discussing had a number of comments > that agreed about my opinion regarding installing/coping files to /usr with > pacman or the install script. > > Although I think it is wrong seblu is free to provide his package via AUR. > But is there any good reason mine is not allowed to reside there? For what it's worth, I (a regular Arch Linux user) support this package, I think it's the best way to install this extension pack, and was a bit amazed that someone with a "competitive" package could delete this one. Kind regards, Marcel BTW, his nick is 'seblu', not 'sublu', as Christian Hesse typoed.
[aur-general] virtualbox-extension-pack vs. virtualbox-ext-oracle
Hello everybody,
following a lengthy discussion sublu just deleted my package
virtualbox-extension-pack from AUR. This is what his package
(virtualbox-ext-oracle) does:
* Install an archive file.
* Use install script to copy a number of files to /usr without pacman knowing
about it.
I think this is the wrong way, so I created my own package
(virtualbox-extension-pack) that tries to get it right:
* Just install the files required, "ready to use" for virtualbox.
* No crappy install script required!
My package had about 75 votes IIRC, probably there would have been more if
more people knew about the details. The discussing had a number of comments
that agreed about my opinion regarding installing/coping files to /usr with
pacman or the install script.
Although I think it is wrong seblu is free to provide his package via AUR.
But is there any good reason mine is not allowed to reside there?
--
main(a){char*c=/*Schoene Gruesse */"B?IJj;MEH"
"CX:;",b;for(a/*Chris get my mail address:*/=0;b=c[a++];)
putchar(b-1/(/* gcc -o sig sig.c && ./sig*/b/42*2-3)*42);}
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Re: [aur-general] no LLDP tools in [extra] or [community] :-/
On 23/07/2014 23:35, Sébastien Luttringer wrote: > On 23/07/2014 15:59, Ido Rosen wrote: >> There's a PKGBUILD for ladvd and lldpd in AUR currently, these are >> important networking tools in data center environments. Can someone >> please promote at least one of them to [community] or ideally [extra]? >> They're not high on votes, but I think this should be an exception >> since not many people are using Arch in data center environments >> anyhow that would need them and would thus vote on them. They both >> implement LLDP daemons. >> > I agree. I will move them. > > Cheers, > lldpd is now in community. Looking deeper in lldp servers/agents capabilities, I came to the conclusion that including ladvd seems unnecessary. With this in mind: http://www.kempgen.net/voip/lldp-agents.html ladvd has no release since Feb 2012 and less features than lldpd. Cheers, -- Sébastien "Seblu" Luttringer https://seblu.net GPG: 0x2072D77A
Re: [aur-general] no LLDP tools in [extra] or [community] :-/
On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 11:31 AM, Sébastien Luttringer wrote: > On 23/07/2014 23:35, Sébastien Luttringer wrote: >> On 23/07/2014 15:59, Ido Rosen wrote: >>> There's a PKGBUILD for ladvd and lldpd in AUR currently, these are >>> important networking tools in data center environments. Can someone >>> please promote at least one of them to [community] or ideally [extra]? >>> They're not high on votes, but I think this should be an exception >>> since not many people are using Arch in data center environments >>> anyhow that would need them and would thus vote on them. They both >>> implement LLDP daemons. >>> >> I agree. I will move them. >> >> Cheers, >> > lldpd is now in community. > > Looking deeper in lldp servers/agents capabilities, I came to the > conclusion that including ladvd seems unnecessary. > > With this in mind: > http://www.kempgen.net/voip/lldp-agents.html > > ladvd has no release since Feb 2012 and less features than lldpd. That's fair, thank you for packaging lldpd! I noticed RedHat no longer seems to package ladvd, and has switched to lldpad. Maybe we should package lldpad (aka Open-LLDP) from http://www.open-lldp.org/ ? Thoughts? > > Cheers, > > -- > Sébastien "Seblu" Luttringer > https://seblu.net > GPG: 0x2072D77A
Re: [aur-general] Compiz package naming
Ok folks. As there have been no comments over the weekend I've uploaded compiz and compiz-bzr: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/compiz/ https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/compiz-bzr/ I've filed requests that compiz-core-devel be merged with compiz and compiz-core-bzr be merged with compiz-bzr. Regards On 1 August 2014 15:04, Charles Bos wrote: > @/dev/rs0 Understood. I'll happily take over maintenance. It makes sense > to have the two packages standardised. > > @all If alucryd or anyone else doesn't raise any objections by Monday then > I'll upload compiz and compiz-bzr and request compiz-core-devel and > compiz-core-bzr be merged into them. > > Is that acceptable for everybody? > > Regards > > > On 31 July 2014 20:49, Colin Robinson wrote: > >> I totally agree with you. I was just pointing out why the packages are >> named the way they are. Please change them unless alucryd wants to weigh in >> on the discussion. >> >> >> On 07/31/2014 08:36 PM, Rob McCathie wrote: >> >>> Guess i'll stop bottom posting when everyone else is top posting :P >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 4:20 AM, Colin Robinson >>> wrote: >>> Comment by alucryd 2014-04-02 07:25 "beardedlinuxgeek: Wrong, the latest stable branch is 0.8.x, the 0.9.x branch is unstable. >>> This is simply incorrect, as i've explained earlier. >>> >>> >>> Comment by alucryd 2014-04-01 08:1 "Merged a few bzr packages into this one. Could you upload it as 'compiz-core-bzr', all other distros use the 'compiz-core' name. I'll do the merge afterwards." >>> Meh. Upstream doesn't recognise the concept of "compiz-core" since the >>> 0.9 series. Do we comply with upstream or do we comply with other >>> distros? Methinks upstream. >>> >>> >>> Sidenote: >>> http://www.paradoxcomputers.com.au/arch/packages/compiz-0. 9.11.2-1.src.tar.gz >>> After some things were noticed and some discussion had in the >>> compiz-core-bzr comments, this package has been updated and anyone >>> reviewing it should re-download it. >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Regards, >>> Rob McCathie >>> >>> >>> Comment by beardedlinuxgeek 2014-04-02 07:39 "This package isn't compiz-core. It's compiz-core + all the plugins + ccsm + the gtk decorator + the kde decorator. Take a look at the components (http://releases.compiz.org/components/), compiz-core is just one of 17 packages. This package, on the other hand, is all of them" --- So obviously I support korrode's new naming scheme of changing things back to how they were originally named. It doesn't matter to me if you rename compiz-core to compiz-legacy-core or compiz0.8-core, but the word "core" needs to be dropped from all the 0.9x packages. On 07/31/2014 06:40 PM, /dev/rs0 wrote: > Hi Charles, > > I think it makes more sense for you to take over my package. > > As I mentioned, it's basically a derivative of the bzr package. I do > enjoy > maintaining packages but I figured, as the bzr package receives > development, > it would be simple enough for you to apply any changes to both packages > instead of always going through me. > > On 07/31/2014 06:58 AM, Charles Bos wrote: > >> Hello all, >> >> So I'm just wondering if the change should go ahead now as the idea >> has >> been floating around for nearly a week and nobody has raised >> objections. >> Regarding the 0.9 bzr package, that would involve me uploading >> compiz-bzr >> and then requesting compiz-core-bzr be merged. >> >> Regarding the stable package, someone should upload the package >> korrode >> made and ask for compiz-core-devel to be merged into it. >> >> /dev/sr0, what are your feelings on continuing to maintain your >> package? >> If >> you want to continue maintenance then you should be the one to upload >> the >> korrode's package and ask for the merger. If you're sure you would >> prefer >> me to take over as you suggested earlier then please let me know and >> then >> we know where we stand. >> >> On the subject of the stable package, a tarball for 0.9.11.2 has been >> released on launchpad.net >> >> Regards >> >> >> On 27 July 2014 14:11, Charles Bos wrote: >> >> That's great korrode. Thanks. :) >>> >>> Is everyone agreed vis-a-vis the new name scheme? I only ask because >>> a >>> TU >>> seemed to have other ideas regarding Compiz package naming >>> consistency - >>> I >>> for instance was asked to rename compiz-bzr to compiz-core-bzr. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 26 July 2014 16:39, Rob McCathie wrote: >>> >>> On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 1:28 AM, Rob McCathie wrote: > On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 9:12 PM, Charles Bos < > charlesb...@gmail.com> >
[aur-general] Signoff report for [community-testing]
=== Signoff report for [community-testing] === https://www.archlinux.org/packages/signoffs/ There are currently: * 12 new packages in last 24 hours * 0 known bad packages * 0 packages not accepting signoffs * 0 fully signed off packages * 17 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 (12 total) == * acpi_call-1.1.0-11 (i686) * bbswitch-0.8-15 (i686) * rt3562sta-2.4.1.1_r1-9 (i686) * tp_smapi-0.41-52 (i686) * vhba-module-20140629-6 (i686) * virtualbox-modules-4.3.14-4 (i686) * acpi_call-1.1.0-11 (x86_64) * bbswitch-0.8-15 (x86_64) * rt3562sta-2.4.1.1_r1-9 (x86_64) * tp_smapi-0.41-52 (x86_64) * vhba-module-20140629-6 (x86_64) * virtualbox-modules-4.3.14-4 (x86_64) == Incomplete signoffs for [community] (17 total) == * perl-extutils-config-0.008-1 (any) 0/2 signoffs * acpi_call-1.1.0-11 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * arm-none-eabi-gdb-7.8-1 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * bbswitch-0.8-15 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * dd_rescue-1.45-2 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * rt3562sta-2.4.1.1_r1-9 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * tp_smapi-0.41-52 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * vhba-module-20140629-6 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * virtualbox-modules-4.3.14-4 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * acpi_call-1.1.0-11 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * arm-none-eabi-gdb-7.8-1 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * bbswitch-0.8-15 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * dd_rescue-1.45-2 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * rt3562sta-2.4.1.1_r1-9 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * tp_smapi-0.41-52 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * vhba-module-20140629-6 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * virtualbox-modules-4.3.14-4 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs == Top five in signoffs in last 24 hours ==
