Re: [aur-general] Split packages
On 22/08/16 21:58, stefan-husm...@t-online.de wrote: The only issue I have with his PKGBUILD is that the conflict line should appear in both package functions and indicate the conflict to the other package. IMO the onus of conflicting should only be on the non-standard/modified package (i.e. the -gtk2 package). -- Regards, Rob McCathie
Re: [aur-general] Deletion of orphaned packages on AUR4
On 12/08/15 13:49, Doug Newgard wrote: In my case, I have some that I'm actively trying to get maintainers for; in the mean time, I'm looking after them even though they are listed as being orphaned. Is this not to be allowed now? Should all "orphan" packages in the official repos be deleted, just assume nobody is looking after them? I updated one package just a few days before it was randomly deleted. There's other stories further up in this thread about them being deleted after only a few hours, all with no notice. If a time limit is to be implemented, it needs to be limit long enough that the package is both unlikely to be being used and unlikely to work anymore. A month or two wouldn't cut it. A notice should also be sent out to anyone set to get notifications for that package with enough lead time for someone to pick it up. Doug Same here. I was still monitoring the couple of packages i'd orphaned, i was hoping someone would take over maintenance. For a time at least, i'd have addressed any issues with them. Anyways, i've re-added the packages and will stay maintainer of them until things settle down a bit. -- Regards, Rob McCathie
[aur-general] Deletion of orphaned packages on AUR4
On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 8:30 AM, wrote: > Kyrias deleted "compiz-gtk-standalone". > > You will no longer receive notifications about this package. On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 8:32 AM, wrote: > Kyrias deleted "compiz-xfce". > > You will no longer receive notifications about this package. Just a query: Why were packages i added to AUR4, ensured were in good working order (and made an enhancement to one of the packages compared to the last release on AUR3), know are used by at least some users, and then orphaned so some other interested party can take over maintenance, were deleted from AUR4? compiz-gtk-standalone was actually the ONLY package on AUR4 that provided the Compiz 0.8 series core component. Since it's deletion there is now at least one package on AUR4 that has unresolvable dependencies. (eg. https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/ccsm/ ) Regards, Rob McCathie
Re: [aur-general] PKGBUILD for multiple packages: some examples?
Here is an example of a split package for you: https://github.com/manjaro/packages-community/blob/master/octopi/PKGBUILD -- Regards, Rob McCathie On 28/03/15 20:08, Giovanni Santini wrote: Good morning everybody, As a student, I need to download for a class AMPL, which has its latest student binaries here [1]. I wanted to create a PKGBUILD with all the possible solvers; I remember to have seen a PKGBUILD that had the same sorce and built multiple packages but I can't remember where. Can someone help me with some PKGBUILD/Wiki article/similar for reference? Thank you. Have a nice day, Giovanni Santini [1] http://ampl.com/netlib/ampl/student/index.html
Re: [aur-general] Compiz package naming
On 05/08/14 22:11, Charles Bos wrote: Personally, I think 0.8 is better because Compiz 0.8 is still fairly widely used so it might not be fair to call it legacy. That said, it doesn't matter to me too much as I don't really have anything to do with Compiz 0.8. Regarding maintainers, these are the people that need to be contacted and their relevant packages: - hazard - ccsm - MilanKnizek - compizcc - FlorianD - compiz-bcop, compiz-backend-kconfig4, compizconfig-python, simple-ccsm - martadinata666 - compiz-core, compiz-fusion-plugins-main compiz-fusion-plugins-extra - flexiondotorg - compiz-core-mate, compiz-decorator-gtk - JesusMcCloud - compiz-fusion-plugins-main-genie - leafonsword - compiz-fusion-plugins-unsupported - DasMoeh - libcompizconfig I don't if it's better to leave comments on the relevant packages or send these folks an email telling them to join this conversation - hopefully they're all at least subscribed to aur-general! I'm also wondering about emerald. We currently have a package called emerald - maintained by martadinata666 - which is the 0.8 version. We also have emerald0.9 and emerald-git - both maintained by me - and both of which are 0.9 versions. Now if the Compiz 0.8 packages are getting renamed then presumably emerald should be renamed to emerald-legacy or emerald0.8 and possibly my emerald0.9 package should be renamed to emerald. Thoughts? On 5 August 2014 01:49, Rob McCathie wrote: ...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 Just thought i'd mention, i did actually make this change for Manjaro a while back: https://github.com/manjaro/packages-community/tree/master/compiz08 (though i used "08", not "0.8"... hmmm...) I (or someone else) could submit all the packages to AUR and then do merge requests for all the old ones... -- Regards, Rob McCathie
[aur-general] More trolling
Hi AUR general, Previous related posts: https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2014-July/029069.html https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2014-November/029845.html Once again the pathetic individual who spends their life trolling Manjaro devs is using AUR as a platform for abuse. This is their most recent account: https://aur.archlinux.org/account/AllenMcrea/ As others have mentioned previously, AUR admins/TUs may want to consider disallowing "minute-mail" type email services from signing up. Here's the recent activity from the troll (also note it could be argued that they're trying to impersonate Allan McRae), i would appreciate if the comments that are simply insulting or that claim my packages broke something, when they clearly do not, could be deleted: -- Your package aqualung has been flagged out of date by AllenMcrea [1]. You may view your package at: https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/aqualung/ [1] -https://aur.archlinux.org/account/AllenMcrea/ -- fromhttps://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/aqualung/ AllenMcrea wrote: This package looks like it was built by a retard. Learn how to package shit or get off of the AUR. -- Your package metacity-theme-thinner has been flagged out of date by AllenMcrea [1]. You may view your package at: https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/metacity-theme-thinner/ [1] -https://aur.archlinux.org/account/AllenMcrea/ -- fromhttps://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/metacity-theme-thinner/ AllenMcrea wrote: Horrible cut and paste packager shame on you! This broke all my shit. -- fromhttps://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/thunar-shares-plugin/ AllenMcrea wrote: Should change the name of this package to "I'm a retart that don't know shit about packaging -- fromhttps://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/xdg-su/ AllenMcrea wrote: FUCK YOU ROB, FUCK YOU IN YOUR GAY ASSHOLE, YOU GAY ASSHOLE -- fromhttps://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/xdg-su/ AllenMcrea wrote: # # # # ## ## -- Again I apologise for this happening, however, I urge the admins to consider taking some preventative action by blacklisting designed-temporary-email services. -- Regards, Rob McCathie
[aur-general] Our troll is going another round
Hello AUR general, Some of you may remember this: https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2014-July/029069.html Our troll recently tried to sneak back on to our forums and of course got banned, and now they're throwing another little tantrum. All my packages are flagged out of date once again, when none of them are, and the package delete request for my aqualung package is not legitimate. This is the troll's account: https://aur.archlinux.org/account/bomberman Again the troll is attempting to cause problems with other services outside of Manjaro's, again AUR is one of them. Apologies. -- Regards, Rob McCathie
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, /
Re: [aur-general] Compiz package naming
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 >>>>> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi /dev/rs0, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Chazza here. If you don't want to continue maintaining >>>>> >>>>> compiz-core-devel >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'd be fine with taking over. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Regards >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 25 July 2014 17:17, /dev/rs0 wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hello Everyone, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I think it definitely
Re: [aur-general] Compiz package naming
On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 1:28 AM, Rob McCathie wrote: > On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 9:12 PM, Charles Bos wrote: >> Hi /dev/rs0, >> >> Chazza here. If you don't want to continue maintaining compiz-core-devel >> I'd be fine with taking over. >> >> Regards >> >> >> On 25 July 2014 17:17, /dev/rs0 wrote: >> >>> Hello Everyone, >>> >>> I think it definitely makes sense to drop the 'core' name and take on the >>> 'legacy' scheme as described. >>> >>> Additionally, seeing as 'compiz-core-bzr' is more actively maintained, and >>> that 'compiz-core-devel' is basically a derivative now; I've been curious >>> if Chazza would like to adopt the package. >>> >>> I occasionally receive patches from him and notice much more community >>> involvement on the Wiki/AUR/Forums in regard to 'compiz-core-bzr'. I seem >>> to be an unnecessary middleman for such an infrequently updated package. >>> >>> /dev/rs0 >>> >>> >>> On 07/25/2014 03:43 AM, Rob McCathie wrote: >>> >>>> Hello AUR general & Compiz package maintainers. >>>> >>>> There was some discussion about Compiz packages a little while ago, i >>>> don't think that much came of it. I'd like to re-open the discussion. >>>> >>>> My opinions/suggestions: >>>> >>>> Calling the 0.8 series "compiz" and the 0.9 series "compiz-devel" is >>>> no longer correct, it hasn't been for quite some time. >>>> >>>> All information on this page: >>>> http://www.compiz.org/ >>>> is completely wrong and out of date, like 5 years out of date, and >>>> should not be used as a reference for anything. >>>> Tracking of the state of Compiz should be done from here: >>>> https://launchpad.net/compiz >>>> >>>> Development of the 0.8 series is as close to being dead as it could >>>> be. Unless you count 2 tiny commits 5 months ago, nothing has been >>>> done in 16 months, and even that 16 month old commit was a minor >>>> change just to get it working with KDE 4.10, with the commit prior to >>>> that being an additional 5 months back. >>>> http://cgit.compiz.org/compiz/core/log/?h=compiz-0.8 >>>> >>>> My suggestion is pretty simple, "compiz" becomes the 0.9 series, the >>>> 0.8 series becomes "compiz-legacy". >>>> Any 0.9 series packages that have "core" in their name should have it >>>> removed, since the concept of Compiz being split up has been dropped >>>> since the 0.9 series. The 0.9 series doesn't have a "core" component, >>>> it's just "compiz". >>>> >>>> Some examples: >>>> >>>> martadinata666's "compiz-core" package would become "compiz-legacy-core" >>>> >>>> dev_rs0's "compiz-core-devel" package would become simply "compiz" >>>> >>>> Chazza's "compiz-core-bzr" package would become "compiz-bzr" >>>> >>>> flexiondotorg's "compiz-core-mate" package would become >>>> "compiz-legacy-core-mate" >>>> >>>> My "compiz-gtk-standalone" package would become >>>> "compiz-legacy-gtk-standalone" >>>> >>>> All the "compiz-fusion-plugins-*" packages would become >>>> "compiz-legacy-fusion-plugins-*" >>>> >>>> ...and so on. >>>> >>>> What are everyone's thoughts? >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Regards, >>>> Rob McCathie >>>> >>> > > > > Charles, i started setting up my new package for Manjaro and since it > included converting the package back to using release archives and > doing 90% of the work to make a suitable generic 'compiz' package for > AUR, i figured i'd post it to you, maybe save you a few mins: > > http://www.paradoxcomputers.com.au/arch/packages/compiz-0.9.11.2-1.src.tar.gz > > I retained your style and patchset, the only thing i did change was > setting cpp as a default plugin at compile time, rather than modifying > the .desktop file... because who isn't going to use ccp? ;) > Plus minimal users who start compiz from their xinitrc get no use from > the .desktop file. > > The package is named simply "compiz". If we're going to go with the > naming convention as discussed, Charles can simply upload this package > (or whatever), /dev/sr0 you could just flag your package for deletion. > > -- > Regards, > Rob McCathie Sorry not deletion, get it merged after Chazza uploads.
Re: [aur-general] Compiz package naming
On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 9:12 PM, Charles Bos wrote: > Hi /dev/rs0, > > Chazza here. If you don't want to continue maintaining compiz-core-devel > I'd be fine with taking over. > > Regards > > > On 25 July 2014 17:17, /dev/rs0 wrote: > >> Hello Everyone, >> >> I think it definitely makes sense to drop the 'core' name and take on the >> 'legacy' scheme as described. >> >> Additionally, seeing as 'compiz-core-bzr' is more actively maintained, and >> that 'compiz-core-devel' is basically a derivative now; I've been curious >> if Chazza would like to adopt the package. >> >> I occasionally receive patches from him and notice much more community >> involvement on the Wiki/AUR/Forums in regard to 'compiz-core-bzr'. I seem >> to be an unnecessary middleman for such an infrequently updated package. >> >> /dev/rs0 >> >> >> On 07/25/2014 03:43 AM, Rob McCathie wrote: >> >>> Hello AUR general & Compiz package maintainers. >>> >>> There was some discussion about Compiz packages a little while ago, i >>> don't think that much came of it. I'd like to re-open the discussion. >>> >>> My opinions/suggestions: >>> >>> Calling the 0.8 series "compiz" and the 0.9 series "compiz-devel" is >>> no longer correct, it hasn't been for quite some time. >>> >>> All information on this page: >>> http://www.compiz.org/ >>> is completely wrong and out of date, like 5 years out of date, and >>> should not be used as a reference for anything. >>> Tracking of the state of Compiz should be done from here: >>> https://launchpad.net/compiz >>> >>> Development of the 0.8 series is as close to being dead as it could >>> be. Unless you count 2 tiny commits 5 months ago, nothing has been >>> done in 16 months, and even that 16 month old commit was a minor >>> change just to get it working with KDE 4.10, with the commit prior to >>> that being an additional 5 months back. >>> http://cgit.compiz.org/compiz/core/log/?h=compiz-0.8 >>> >>> My suggestion is pretty simple, "compiz" becomes the 0.9 series, the >>> 0.8 series becomes "compiz-legacy". >>> Any 0.9 series packages that have "core" in their name should have it >>> removed, since the concept of Compiz being split up has been dropped >>> since the 0.9 series. The 0.9 series doesn't have a "core" component, >>> it's just "compiz". >>> >>> Some examples: >>> >>> martadinata666's "compiz-core" package would become "compiz-legacy-core" >>> >>> dev_rs0's "compiz-core-devel" package would become simply "compiz" >>> >>> Chazza's "compiz-core-bzr" package would become "compiz-bzr" >>> >>> flexiondotorg's "compiz-core-mate" package would become >>> "compiz-legacy-core-mate" >>> >>> My "compiz-gtk-standalone" package would become >>> "compiz-legacy-gtk-standalone" >>> >>> All the "compiz-fusion-plugins-*" packages would become >>> "compiz-legacy-fusion-plugins-*" >>> >>> ...and so on. >>> >>> What are everyone's thoughts? >>> >>> -- >>> Regards, >>> Rob McCathie >>> >> Charles, i started setting up my new package for Manjaro and since it included converting the package back to using release archives and doing 90% of the work to make a suitable generic 'compiz' package for AUR, i figured i'd post it to you, maybe save you a few mins: http://www.paradoxcomputers.com.au/arch/packages/compiz-0.9.11.2-1.src.tar.gz I retained your style and patchset, the only thing i did change was setting cpp as a default plugin at compile time, rather than modifying the .desktop file... because who isn't going to use ccp? ;) Plus minimal users who start compiz from their xinitrc get no use from the .desktop file. The package is named simply "compiz". If we're going to go with the naming convention as discussed, Charles can simply upload this package (or whatever), /dev/sr0 you could just flag your package for deletion. -- Regards, Rob McCathie
Re: [aur-general] Compiz package naming
Hi Charles :) > Message: 6 > Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 10:51:15 +0100 > From: Charles Bos > To: "Discussion about the Arch User Repository (AUR)" > > Subject: Re: [aur-general] Compiz package naming > Message-ID: > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > This change sounds sensible to me. I would be more than happy to turn > compiz-core-bzr back into compiz-bzr. > > Regarding compiz.org, that has been dead for a long time and I wouldn't > consider it an authority on Compiz information. For instance: on the front > page of wiki.compiz.org it states that 0.8.8 is the latest 0.8 release and > 0.9.8 is the latest 0.9 release when it is actually 0.8.9 and 0.9.11 > respectively. > > I wouldn't regard the 0.9.x series is not a fork. It's a development branch > which should theoretically be released as Compiz 0.10 or Compiz 1.0 in the > same way that GNOME 3.13 is a development branch that will be released as > 3.14 in the future. I think it's a struggle to even refer to it as a development branch these days. It's been used in multiple releases of the (supposedly) enterprise-grade Ubuntu LTS releases. Doesn't sound like the sort of distribution release that "development branch" software would be used in. Personally, I view the 0.9 series as the current release branch. > Regarding the renaming of the 0.8 packages. Perhaps they could be called > compiz0.8 instead of compiz-legacy. This sometimes happens in the official > repos. For instance: there's wxgtk (which is at version 3) and wxgtk2.8. > Just a thought. Sure, compiz-legacy, compiz0.8, either works. -- Regards, Rob McCathie
Re: [aur-general] Compiz package naming
>> Hello AUR general & Compiz package maintainers. >> >> There was some discussion about Compiz packages a little while ago, i >> don't think that much came of it. I'd like to re-open the discussion. >> >> My opinions/suggestions: >> >> Calling the 0.8 series "compiz" and the 0.9 series "compiz-devel" is >> no longer correct, it hasn't been for quite some time. >> >> All information on this page: >> http://www.compiz.org/ >> is completely wrong and out of date, like 5 years out of date, and >> should not be used as a reference for anything. >> Tracking of the state of Compiz should be done from here: >> https://launchpad.net/compiz >> >> Development of the 0.8 series is as close to being dead as it could >> be. Unless you count 2 tiny commits 5 months ago, nothing has been >> done in 16 months, and even that 16 month old commit was a minor >> change just to get it working with KDE 4.10, with the commit prior to >> that being an additional 5 months back. >> http://cgit.compiz.org/compiz/core/log/?h=compiz-0.8 >> >> My suggestion is pretty simple, "compiz" becomes the 0.9 series, the >> 0.8 series becomes "compiz-legacy". >> Any 0.9 series packages that have "core" in their name should have it >> removed, since the concept of Compiz being split up has been dropped >> since the 0.9 series. The 0.9 series doesn't have a "core" component, >> it's just "compiz". >> >> Some examples: >> >> martadinata666's "compiz-core" package would become "compiz-legacy-core" >> >> dev_rs0's "compiz-core-devel" package would become simply "compiz" >> >> Chazza's "compiz-core-bzr" package would become "compiz-bzr" >> >> flexiondotorg's "compiz-core-mate" package would become >> "compiz-legacy-core-mate" >> >> My "compiz-gtk-standalone" package would become >> "compiz-legacy-gtk-standalone" >> >> All the "compiz-fusion-plugins-*" packages would become >> "compiz-legacy-fusion-plugins-*" >> >> ...and so on. >> >> What are everyone's thoughts? >> >> -- >> Regards, >> Rob McCathie > >If that's true, why haven't the developers updated the site to reflect >that? I think it's fairly obvious that no one is actually maintaining that site. >The lead developer seems to consider the project dead, and the >site reflects that view. Canonical is doing temporary maintenance of >their fork until they move to Mir. I wouldn't call the 0.9 series "Canonical's fork". Canonical hired lead Compiz developer, Sam Spilsbury, to continue work on Compiz. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compiz#Compiz_0.9_series I don't see how the current launchpad hosted Compiz could be considered anything other than the true successor. Also, to ensure another common misconception doesn't crop up - The Compiz 0.9 gets further patched beyond what is on launchpad.net/compiz by Canonical for Unity. The code you get if you source directly from launchpad.net/compiz is not Unity or Ubuntu specific. I can say this with much confidence, since i've been using it for months now combined with Xfce (as a xfwm4 replacement) on Arch and Manjaro systems. -- Regards, Rob McCathie
[aur-general] Compiz package naming
Hello AUR general & Compiz package maintainers. There was some discussion about Compiz packages a little while ago, i don't think that much came of it. I'd like to re-open the discussion. My opinions/suggestions: Calling the 0.8 series "compiz" and the 0.9 series "compiz-devel" is no longer correct, it hasn't been for quite some time. All information on this page: http://www.compiz.org/ is completely wrong and out of date, like 5 years out of date, and should not be used as a reference for anything. Tracking of the state of Compiz should be done from here: https://launchpad.net/compiz Development of the 0.8 series is as close to being dead as it could be. Unless you count 2 tiny commits 5 months ago, nothing has been done in 16 months, and even that 16 month old commit was a minor change just to get it working with KDE 4.10, with the commit prior to that being an additional 5 months back. http://cgit.compiz.org/compiz/core/log/?h=compiz-0.8 My suggestion is pretty simple, "compiz" becomes the 0.9 series, the 0.8 series becomes "compiz-legacy". Any 0.9 series packages that have "core" in their name should have it removed, since the concept of Compiz being split up has been dropped since the 0.9 series. The 0.9 series doesn't have a "core" component, it's just "compiz". Some examples: martadinata666's "compiz-core" package would become "compiz-legacy-core" dev_rs0's "compiz-core-devel" package would become simply "compiz" Chazza's "compiz-core-bzr" package would become "compiz-bzr" flexiondotorg's "compiz-core-mate" package would become "compiz-legacy-core-mate" My "compiz-gtk-standalone" package would become "compiz-legacy-gtk-standalone" All the "compiz-fusion-plugins-*" packages would become "compiz-legacy-fusion-plugins-*" ...and so on. What are everyone's thoughts? -- Regards, Rob McCathie
[aur-general] Troll account
Hello AUR General, I am a Manjaro team member and have been an Arch user for ~5 years. I still run Arch proper on many systems and test my AUR packages on Arch proper (just thought i'd get that out of the way ;-p ) We've had to remove someone from our team recently due to their abusing of their forum account's moderation privileges and some other stuff. This person has gone on to prove just how right we were to get rid of them by launching malicious attacks on our wiki and attempts on some other web services. (There's no doubt it's the same person, he directly threatened us with malicious action.) It appears now he is attacking Manjaro team members with any avenue he can find. This account here: https://aur.archlinux.org/account/kingrobbo Has been made for no reason but to troll (myself and possibly other Manjaro devs with AUR accounts). It flagged all of my AUR packages out-of-date (of which none are) and sent a delete request for one (aqualung). The name "kingrobbo" tells me with 100% certainty that it's the same now-troll we've been dealing with, if any AUR admins want more information on this and why i know it's the same person please feel free to email me privately. For now i haven't set all my packages to not-out-of-date, so the AUR admins get a chance to see what i mean. I cannot apologise enough for our problems spilling onto AUR, obviously this is the last thing we want. Of course how to respond is up to you, but my hope is, obviously, that you'll delete their AUR account. Regards and apologies, Rob McCathie
[aur-general] Deletion request: aqualung-alsa
Hi TU's & list, I'm the original submitter of aqualung-alsa. Nowadays i'm the maintainer of aqualung and aqualung-svn too. aqualung-alsa can be deleted. For now people should be using the SVN package anyway, within which i've left a commented out alternate ./configure line in the PKGBUILD, for people who want to force only ALSA. https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/aqualung-alsa/ Thanks & regards, Rob McCathie
Re: [aur-general] AUR Requests
On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Michael Schubert 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)
[aur-general] Fwd: AUR Package deleted: mesa9
-- Forwarded message -- >From: >Date: Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 10:40 AM >Subject: AUR Package deleted: mesa9 >To: > > >lordheavy deleted "mesa9". > >You will no longer receive notifications about this package. Hey TU's, I realise I kinda uploaded this package and quickly disowned it, but there is in fact some serious regressions in mesa 10.x (thus far) for *some* AMD/ATi & Intel GPU users. I wasn't willing to maintaining the package because I personally don't own any of the affected hardware, however AFAIK the state i left the package in when i disowned it was a perfectly working one. I figured someone affected could pick it up. Anyways, just mentioning it. I don't personally care either way. Regards, Rob McCathie (korrode)
Re: [aur-general] Compiz reform
> Message: 4
> Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2014 10:59:21 +0100
> From: Florian Dejonckheere
> To: AUR General
> Subject: [aur-general] Compiz reform
> Message-ID:
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> Compiz has been dropped from [community] for over a year. It's time to
> clean up the fragmented packages. I suggest the following changes:
>
> - Merge all 'compiz' packages (compiz, compiz-pure etc.) into
> 'compiz-core', make that one DE independant.
> - Create either spinoffs of that package built for DEs (gnome, gtk, kde) or
> use a split package ? la backintime-{gnome,gtk,kde4} (which I prefer)
> - Standalone decorator packages for gnome, gtk, kde, emerald
> - Rename plugins from 'compiz-fusion-plugins-*' to 'compiz-plugins-*'
> following upstream
>
> We also seem to have a lot of -dev and -bzr packages for compiz++ (aka
> compiz 0.9). To me it makes more sense to rename all -dev packages to
> compiz++, since compiz-0.9 is (or rather, was) the next-gen version of
> compiz, rather than a development version.
>
> Besides that, almost all PKGBUILDs have to be updated to match modern
> standards.
>
> - Florian
>
Just try not to flip-out on me too much when you see my convoluted
compiz-xfce package, Florian. :D
Regards,
Rob McCathie (korrode)
Re: [aur-general] Delete request: bison27
> > Message: 5 > Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 06:17:37 -0800 > From: Anatol Pomozov > To: "Discussion about the Arch User Repository (AUR)" > > Subject: Re: [aur-general] Delete request: bison27 > Message-ID: > m...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > Hi > > On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 4:56 PM, Rob McCathie wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I have re-uploaded bison27 to AUR and disowned the package. > > > > Sorry, if i'd known it had been used anywhere other than wine-stable > > obviously i'd have just disowned it and left it. > > > > Sadly when another packages references your package as a makedepends (not > > depends) is doesn't show up in that "Require by" section. > > Arch website tracks build time dependencies between packages. Check > for example 'bison' package > https://www.archlinux.org/packages/core/x86_64/bison/ > > AUR website should do the same. Could you please file a bug against AUR > project? > Seems such a bug report already exists. I added my vote. https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/12998 Regards, Rob McCathie (korrode)
Re: [aur-general] Delete request: bison27
Hi, I have re-uploaded bison27 to AUR and disowned the package. Sorry, if i'd known it had been used anywhere other than wine-stable obviously i'd have just disowned it and left it. Sadly when another packages references your package as a makedepends (not depends) is doesn't show up in that "Require by" section. Regards, Rob McCathie (korrode) On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 3:20 AM, wrote: > Message: 4 > Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 11:57:40 +0100 > From: Alexander R?dseth > To: "Discussion about the Arch User Repository (AUR)" > > Subject: Re: [aur-general] Delete request: bison27 > Message-ID: > < > cag7ayytshbqwnuwotmmjnlmqwkuggehxnpxflyqbespy7qu...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > Hi, > > bison27 was a make dependency for libgnomeprint. Would it be possible > to upload it to AUR again? > > Thanks. > > -- > Sincerely, > Alexander R?dseth > xyproto / TU >
[aur-general] Delete request: bison27
https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/bison27/ I made this package because wine-stable 1.6 didn't work with newer releases of bison. Wine 1.6.1 was just released with this issue resolved and I have already updated wine-stable. bison27 is no longer needed. Regards, Rob McCathie (korrode)
