[aur-general] Delete burg-emu
Hi, Please delete burg-emu https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=43876 as the PKGBUILD has been merged into burg-bzr https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=33382 . Regards. Keshav
[aur-general] merge grub2-ubuntu into grub2-bios-ubuntu
Hi, As thesubjectsays merge grub2-ubuntu https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=52334 into grub2-bios-ubuntu https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=52336 and delete the first one. TIA. Regards. Keshav
[aur-general] delete grub-legacy-gfx
Hi, Please remove grub-legacy-gfx https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=50986 . I initially uploaded it as a replacament for grub-gfx https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=2416 but now its just a duplicate of grub-gfx. TIA. Regards. Keshav
Re: [aur-general] Merge of virtualbox_bin into virtualbox-bin
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 14:10, Lukas Fleischer archli...@cryptocrack.de wrote:
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 10:35:34AM +0200, Seblu wrote:
Hello,
Can you merge virtualbox_bin into virtualbox-bin ?
The reason are those requested by josephgbr in
https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=9753
quote
The reason I'm asking this is that every time I update my packages
with yaourt -Syua, the package virtualbox-ext-oracle is listed
first than this package ('-' come first than '_') and I always have to
reinstall again after virtualbox_bin in order to work.
Thanks in advance.
/quote
That reason is a bit ridiculous... Anyway, I renamed the package.
virtualbox-bin seems to be a better name.
I don't know if this has been discussed before, but along with moving
votes and comments, how about moving notify lists of the old package
to the new one, along with maybe a package comment in the old package
mentioning that the old package has been renamed to new one (not
manually by the user but automatically by the AUR software, before
deleting the old one?
Regards.
Keshav
[aur-general] Deletion request
Hi, Please delete efilinux-git https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=51119 . It has been replaced by efilinux-x86_64-git https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=51688 . Thanks in advance. Regards. Keshav
Re: [aur-general] delete grub-gfx
On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 00:36, KESHAV P.R. skodab...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, Please delete grub-gfx https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=2416 . Although it has more votes, I modified the PKGBUILD a bit and replaced the package with grub-legacy-gfx https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=50986 which builds fine in x86_64 system with gcc-multilib. Thanks in advance. Regards. Keshav Bump. anyone?
Re: [aur-general] delete grub-gfx
On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 00:58, Heiko Baums li...@baums-on-web.de wrote: Am Sat, 30 Jul 2011 00:47:03 +0530 schrieb KESHAV P.R. skodab...@gmail.com: On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 00:36, KESHAV P.R. skodab...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, Please delete grub-gfx https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=2416 . Although it has more votes, I modified the PKGBUILD a bit and replaced the package with grub-legacy-gfx https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=50986 which builds fine in x86_64 system with gcc-multilib. Thanks in advance. Regards. Keshav Bump. anyone? I would keep grub-gfx and remove grub-legacy-gfx. The package in [core] is also called grub and not grub-legacy. And the source package is also called grub-0.97.tar.gz and not grub-legacy-0.97.tar.gz. So grub-gfx is the better name. Heiko I mentioned current upstream naming. According to upstream, presently grub2 aka grub 1.9x == grub and grub 0.97 == grub-legacy . I have also submittted a grub-legacy PKGBUILD to Allan for inclusion in official repo (grub itself may be removed from core repo, who knows). The source tarball name won't change upstream as it was generated years back, shortly before grub became grub-legacy. //offnote: I simply bumped this thread since its strange that no one replied to this mail for 4 days. Regards. Keshav
[aur-general] delete grub-gfx
Hi, Please delete grub-gfx https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=2416 . Although it has more votes, I modified the PKGBUILD a bit and replaced the package with grub-legacy-gfx https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=50986 which builds fine in x86_64 system with gcc-multilib. Thanks in advance. Regards. Keshav
[aur-general] grub-legacy-fedora-git package
Hi all, I have created a PKGBUILD for Fedora's GRUB Legacy fork, grub-legacy-fedora-git https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=47959 . It includes support for GPT boot (not tested) and supports ext4 /boot (tested using the UEFI package). It does not include any of the patches used in core/grub package. It compiles fine with the binutils in Arch repos (unlike the current core/grub and aur/grub-gfx packages). It also supports splashimage (gfx) option. Although I maintain that package, I do not use it. I use grub2-bios-bzr which I maintain). Important info :- 1. The menu config file is /boot/grub/grub.conf, not /boot/grub/menu.lst . 2. The syntax for splashimage is (for example) - splashimage (hd0,0)/boot/grub/image.xpm.gz 3. The package builds fine in x86_64 with gcc-multilib. I have not checked whether it compiles without gcc-multilib (grub2 1.99 compiles without multilib in x86_64). Would be helpful if someone confirms whether it compiles in x86_64 without multilib. I request current core/grub and aur/grub-gfx users to test this package and give your comments/suggestions. Regards. Keshav PS: The equivalent UEFI package is grub-legacy-efi-fedora https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=47979 .
Re: [aur-general] Orphan Request : e2fsprogs-git
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 03:34, KESHAV P.R. skodab...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 03:28, Martti Kühne mysat...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 11:32 PM, KESHAV P.R. skodab...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, Please orphan e2fsprogs-git https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=19803 . The PKGBUILD has not been updated since Jan 2010 and has file conflicts with util-linux package. The maintainer does not seen to responsive to comments. Thanks in advance. Regards. Keshav maybe he/she hasn't turned on notification for that package. usually people are given 2 weeks to answer to e-mails. The most recent activity by that user seems to have been in december 2010. regards mar77i Well, I have an updated PKGBUILD ready to upload and maintain. A user already submitted a updated PKGBUILD in Nov 2010 which seems to have been ignored. I think thats a pretty long time. Regards. Keshav The maintainer him/herself has disowned the package. I have adopted it and updated the PKGBUILD. Thank you all. Regards. Keshav
[aur-general] Orphan Request : e2fsprogs-git
Hi, Please orphan e2fsprogs-git https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=19803 . The PKGBUILD has not been updated since Jan 2010 and has file conflicts with util-linux package. The maintainer does not seen to responsive to comments. Thanks in advance. Regards. Keshav
Re: [aur-general] Orphan Request : e2fsprogs-git
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 03:28, Martti Kühne mysat...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 11:32 PM, KESHAV P.R. skodab...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, Please orphan e2fsprogs-git https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=19803 . The PKGBUILD has not been updated since Jan 2010 and has file conflicts with util-linux package. The maintainer does not seen to responsive to comments. Thanks in advance. Regards. Keshav maybe he/she hasn't turned on notification for that package. usually people are given 2 weeks to answer to e-mails. The most recent activity by that user seems to have been in december 2010. regards mar77i Well, I have an updated PKGBUILD ready to upload and maintain. A user already submitted a updated PKGBUILD in Nov 2010 which seems to have been ignored. I think thats a pretty long time. Regards. Keshav
[aur-general] Deletion request
Hi, Can any TU please delete coreboot-git[1] and librecad-svn[2]. They have been replaced by boot-update[3] (upstream name change) and librecad-git[4] respectively. [1] http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=36861 [2] http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=44799 [3] http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=39388 [4] http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=48380 Regards. Keshav
Re: [aur-general] [arch-dev-public] Orphans [extra] repository cleanup
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 20:04, Ionut Biru ib...@archlinux.org wrote: On 05/12/2011 02:53 PM, Andrea Scarpino wrote: gptfdisk If there are no objections I'll move all them tomorrow. keep that. we also have a feature request on the tracker to include it on the iso -- Ionuț GPT fdisk is maintained by Tobias Powalowski (tpowa). Orphaning that should have been a mistake since archboot installer uses gdisk extensively. I maintain gptfdisk-git http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=39338 . - Keshav
[aur-general] delete package
Hi, Please delete grub2-btrfs http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=39314 . grub2-bios-bzr-exp http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=41055 (actual pkgname is inside the PKGBUILD) supports btrfs booting according to upstream and the former package is an unofficial VCS version which has been not been updated for a few months now (upstream does not recommend the former repo). Thanks in advance. - Keshav
[aur-general] deletion request
Hi, Please delete grub-efi-fedora http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=38466 . I have renamed the package to grub-legacy-efi-fedora grub-legacy-efi-fedora http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=47979 . Also please delete grub2-dmraid https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=39455 and grub2-bzr https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=44979 . The extra/grub2-bios 1.99~rc1 package supports dmraid now and grub2-bios-bzr https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=41055 (based on grub2 1.99~rc1 PKGBUILD) provides grub2-bzr package (based on old grub2 1.98 PKGBUILD). Thanks in advance. - Keshav
Re: [aur-general] Status of virtualbox_bin{, _beta, -1, -2, -3} and virtualbox-sun
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 16:33, Lukas Fleischer archli...@cryptocrack.de wrote:
Hey, folks!
In consequence to recent deletion requests concerning the pre-built
VirtualBox packages in the AUR, I decided that we should agree on what
to do with them in consensus. The status quo is that the PUEL (Personal
Use and Evaluation License) edition of VirtualBox is gone as of release
4.0, since people can now use additional features with virtualbox from
[community] and a closed-source extension pack [1]. Instead, Oracle
provides a pre-built VirtualBox package as the successor of the PUEL
edition which, however, is exactly the same thing as the package in
[community]. Afaik, the only difference is that the [community] package
is compiled by us whereas the binary package is built by Oracle.
We currently have at least six source tarballs based on that pre-built
version in the AUR:
- virtualbox_bin [2]
- virtualbox_bin_beta [3]
- virtualbox_bin-1 [4]
- virtualbox_bin-2 [5]
- virtualbox_bin-3 [6]
- virtualbox-sun [7]
virtualbox_bin-{1,2,3} are legacy packages. They still have a
considerable number of votes.
Following points emerged during earlier discussions:
Pro deletion:
- There shouldn't be any packages in the AUR that provide exactly the
same stuff as another package in the official repos.
- The [community] package is preferable to the AUR packages as it is
maintained by some Arch dev and contains Arch-specific patches. People
might also be confused by the high number of votes on virtualbox_bin.
Against:
- Why delete them? These packages still have AUR maintainers, upstream's
still active, they don't break things, they ain't real dupes.
- The binary packages can be used to check for upstream faults in case
the official virtualbox package breaks.
Any further opinions?
[1] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=44761
[2] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=9753
[3] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=27339
[4] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=19613
[5] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=27853
[6] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=44826
[7] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=31996
As a user, I would say -
Leave virtualbox_bin_beta as it is, since oracle does release beta
tarball (but with no announcement regarding any beta release -
http://download.virtualbox.org/virtualbox/LATEST-BETA.TXT ). Versions
{1,2,3} is your call.
I support the second reason in 'Against' argument. I prefer to have
any one package - virtualbox_bin or virtualbox-sun - to be left
untouched. Currently there seems to be some in compatibility between
qt and virtualbox in community as seen in virtualbox_bin comments. For
such isssues Oracle compiled binaries provide a fallback.
Regards.
Keshav
[aur-general] deletion request
Can someone please delete efibootmgr http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=11899 . It was moved into 'extra' repo http://www.archlinux.org/packages/extra/x86_64/efibootmgr/ by tpowa about 2 days back. Thanks in advance. - Keshav
Re: [aur-general] deletion request
On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 11:51, Sven-Hendrik Haase s...@lutzhaase.com wrote: On 06.02.2011 07:19, KESHAV P.R. wrote: Can someone please delete efibootmgr http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=11899 . It was moved into 'extra' repo http://www.archlinux.org/packages/extra/x86_64/efibootmgr/ by tpowa about 2 days back. Thanks in advance. - Keshav I destroyed it with awesome power. -- Sven-Hendrik Haha, that was damn fast. Thanks. - Keshav
Re: [aur-general] Tarball Guidelines
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 03:16, Ray Rashif sc...@archlinux.org wrote: On 8 December 2010 03:47, keenerd keen...@gmail.com wrote: Here are some of my favorites. And some stats about what is in the AUR. -Kyle http://kmkeen.com You could also try the following: * PKGBUILDs with executable bit set * Install scriptlets with executable bit set * One or more included files from source array if it's a URL I am not a TU but I maintain all my PKGBUILDs http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?SeB=mK=skodabenz in a git repo in an ntfs partition so that I can edit even in windows (of course makepkg --source needs arch). Any damn file created in the ntfs partition gets executable bit set. There is a ntfs-3g mount option to disable executable bit for all files but I am not using it as I use some bash scripts which I run from that partition itself instead of copying to home/desktop dir. Just my suggestion. - Keshav Anyway, we could implement things like these in AUR itself, and the maintainer would be informed upon upload (first submission or subsequent updates) without having to resort to posting comments, and depending on the severity of non-compliance either allow or reject the upload. Also, while you're on this, you can actually send the maintainer an e-mail, rather than posting a comment. That would be pretty slick, actually. But of course, first we need to decide what and what not to warn/inform about.
Re: [aur-general] Tarball Guidelines
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 03:16, Ray Rashif sc...@archlinux.org wrote: On 8 December 2010 03:47, keenerd keen...@gmail.com wrote: Here are some of my favorites. And some stats about what is in the AUR. -Kyle http://kmkeen.com You could also try the following: * PKGBUILDs with executable bit set * Install scriptlets with executable bit set * One or more included files from source array if it's a URL I am not a TU but I maintain all my PKGBUILDs http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?SeB=mK=skodabenz in a git repo in an ntfs partition so that I can edit even in windows (of course makepkg --source needs arch). Any damn file created in the ntfs partition gets executable bit set. There is a ntfs-3g mount option to disable executable bit for all files but I am not using it as I use some bash scripts which I run from that partition itself instead of copying to home/desktop dir. So I don't think executable bit checking is a good idea. I would prefer checking for ELF executables instead of any binary. Icons and image files can be allowed. Just my suggestion. - Keshav Anyway, we could implement things like these in AUR itself, and the maintainer would be informed upon upload (first submission or subsequent updates) without having to resort to posting comments, and depending on the severity of non-compliance either allow or reject the upload. Also, while you're on this, you can actually send the maintainer an e-mail, rather than posting a comment. That would be pretty slick, actually. But of course, first we need to decide what and what not to warn/inform about.
[aur-general] grub2-bzr deletion request
Hi anyone, I request the deletion of grub2-bzr http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=37287 . The maintainer seems inactive and has not responded to comments. The grub2 build system has changed (in bzr repo, after 1.98) and new dependencies (autogen etc.) are needed. I have uploaded grub2-bios-bzr http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=41055 to replace it. The pkgname for the new package is intentional as I also maintain grub2-efi-bzr http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=40290 . Thanks in advance. Keshav
Re: [aur-general] grub2-bzr deletion request
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 21:03, Xyne x...@archlinux.ca wrote: Btw, there was no maintainer. :P There was a maintainer http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?K=unknownSeB=m .The maintainer's username is unknown ! Anyway thanks. Keshav
Re: [aur-general] Deletion request
Please delete grub2-with-extras-bzr http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=40061 , I have renamed and re-uploaded the package as grub2-bios-bzr http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=41055 . Thanks in advance. - Keshav
[aur-general] Deletion request
Please delete grub2-efi http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=40300 package . I am currently working on a grub2 split pkg for extra repo and grub2-efi-bzr http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=40290 package provides the same functionality as grub2-efi as of now. I am the maintainer of both the pkgs. Regards. Keshav
Re: [aur-general] Flashplugin packages removal
flashplugin-native64 - http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=38184 The old stable 64bit release, will be removed when we have it back in the repo. There has never been any stable release of x86_64 flashplugin, the old plugin (with the security problems) was part of Adobe Labs and not a stable release. The source link in the flashplugin-native64 package does not work now and flashplugin-prereleas epackage works perfectly. flashplugin-dev- http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=32391 Done, uploaded, never touched again. This package is not yet removed. It is too old and has not been updated for a long time. Regards. Keshav
[aur-general] Packages deletion request
The following packages have to be removed from AUR nspluginwrapper-flash - http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=6232 nspluginwrapper-ubuntu - http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=14707 wine-stable- http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=35486 nspluginwrapper and wine are present in the multilib repo. I think nspluginwrapper-flash-prerelease http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=32081can be left alone since it provides prerelease versions, not stable releases. Regards. Keshav
Re: [aur-general] Packages deletion request
And this package also lib32-konqueror-nsplugins http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=10287 2010/9/17 Lukáš Jirkovský l.jirkov...@gmail.com: On 17 September 2010 17:53, KESHAV P.R. skodab...@gmail.com wrote: The following packages have to be removed from AUR nspluginwrapper-flash - http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=6232 Deleted. Checked it with the flash from [multilib] and they are indeed duplicates (only the multilib version is a bit better)
[aur-general] Flashplugin packages removal
I think the following packages have to be removed from AUR :- flashplugin-universal- http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=25402 lib32-flashplugin-prerelease - http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=37888 lib32-flashplugin - http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=15406 flashplugin-native64 - http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=38184 flashplugin-dev- http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=32391 The lib32 plugins are present in multilib repo (using nspluginwrapper). A new native x86_64 flashplugin preview has been released in Adobe labs and available through flashplugin-prerelease http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=32072 which replaces flashplugin-native64. ALl these packages have many votes though. Regards. Keshav
[aur-general] deletion request
Please delete the following packages from AUR :- grub2-efi-x64-bzr http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=39901 grub2-efi-x86-bzr http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=39902 grub2-efi-x64 http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=39904 grub2-efi-x86 http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=39905 The packages have been merged (based on tpowa's suggestion) and replaced by grub2-efi-bzr http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=40290 and grub2-efi http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=40300 (see the PKGBUILDs for more info). Thanks in advance. Keshav
[aur-general] PKGBUILDs check
Can someone please check these PKGBUILDs for any apparent errors. Please ignore the pkgnames for now. Thanks in advance. grub2-efi-bzr http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=40290 grub2-efi http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=40300 Regards. Keshav
Re: [aur-general] PKGBUILDs check
This package also grub2-with-extras-bzr http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=40061 Regards. Keshav
Re: [aur-general] Packages deletion request and PKGBUILD check
Please delete packages - grub2-efi-x64-bzr http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=39901 and grub2-efi-x86-bzr http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=39902 . The packages have been merged (based on tpowa's suggestion) and replaced by grub2-efi-bzr http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=40290 (see PKGBUILD for more info). Please delete these pkgs also - grub2-efi-x64 http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=39904 and grub2-efi-x86 http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=39905 The packages have been merged and replaced by grub2-efi http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=40300 . Can someone please check the PKGBUILDs http://aur.archlinux.org/packages/grub2-efi-bzr/grub2-efi-bzr/PKGBUILD and http://aur.archlinux.org/packages/grub2-efi/grub2-efi/PKGBUILD for any apparent errors. Thanks in advance. Regards. Keshav
Re: [aur-general] Packages deletion request and PKGBUILD check
@Nathan O: I used startdir absolute path (instead of relative path).
Actually it should be ../../../grub2-efi-bzr.install
[quote Nathan Wayde]
I'm just making noise here, but I really don't think that .install file
should be doing what it's currently doing.
such as:
`cp /usr/lib/${_trns_name}/${_EFI_ARCH}-... /boot/...`
[/quote]
I plan to add EFISYS partition detection to the post_install script -
/boot/grub2_efi_x64 etc. is temporary location. Accoding to uefi spec
the proper location is EFISYS_PART/efi/grub2_efi_x64 (grub2_efi_x64
is my own naming - not according to uefi spec or grub2 devs). I leave
the post_install script unchanged for now. Is the dummy pkgname any
problem?
[aur-general] Packages deletion request and PKGBUILD check
Please delete packages grub2-efi-x64-bzr http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=39901 and grub2-efi-x86-bzr http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=39902 . The packages have been merged and replaced by grub2-efi-bzr http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=40290 (see PKGBUILD for more info). Can someone please check the PKGBUILD http://aur.archlinux.org/packages/grub2-efi-bzr/grub2-efi-bzr/PKGBUILD for any apparent errors. Thanks in advance. Regards. Keshav
[aur-general] Packages removal request
Please remove the following packages from AUR grub2-gfxmenu-bzr - http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=36387 - Package uses old url - gfxmenu integrated in grub2 savannah bzr and available as part of grub2 1.98 - see http://grub.gibibit.com/Journal partclone-svn - http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=23841 - replaced by partclone-git http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=35997 grub-gfxmenu - http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=10266 - exists in community repo as grub-gfx http://www.archlinux.org/packages/community/x86_64/grub-gfx/ grub2-915resolution - http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=22927 - orphaned - replaced by grub2-with-extras-bzr http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=40061 Regards Keshav
[aur-general] Packages deletion request
The following packages are either too old or replaced by other packages - visparted-svn - http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=15314 - Upstream no longer exists and package orphaned btrfs-git - http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=22577 - btrfs is no more unstable bin32-partimage - http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=12037 - available at http://svn.archlinux.org/packages/community/x86_64/partimage/ kernel26-rc - http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=31932 - replaced by kernel26-mainline http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=39965 Before deleting, can you please copy all the comments of kernel26-rc to kernel26-mainline. Thank you.
Re: [aur-general] Packages deletion request
kernel26-rc - http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=31932 - replaced by kernel26-mainline http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=39965 Before deleting, can you please copy all the comments of kernel26-rc to kernel26-mainline. Thank you. not possible. i suggest to delete instead kernel26-mainline. i don't understand the rename. I copied the required comment manually (only 1 comment was required). You may delete the package. I am not the maintainer of the package but I use it very much.
[aur-general] Packages Deletion request
Please delete the following AUR packages (all are grub2 related) grub2-915resolution - http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=22927 - now available as part of grub-extras (upstream) (not still in AUR) grub2-efi-bzr - http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=38369 - My own - orphaned grub2-efi-bzr-exp- http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=39601 - My own - orphaned Both the packages have been replaced by grub2-efi-x64-bzr ( http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=39901) and grub2-efi-x86-bzr (http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=39902) grub2-gfxmenu - http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=27280 - gfxmenu is now integrated in grub2 bzr upstream present in grub2 1.98 grub2-gfxmenu-bzr - http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=36387 - same reason as above grub2-svn - http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=28283 - replaced by grub2-bzr (http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=37287) grub2-quiet - http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=35282 - there is no such thing as quiet grub2 - this package simply removes some printf messages - already orphaned Thank you.
