Re: [aur-general] Disconcerting commit dates and lack of comments for slickpicker
It seems a bit... inefficient... to re-clone a repository under someone else's control every time you want to update something. So, why should AUR packages be different from any other form of source code? It shouldn't be. I just haven't gotten around to setting up a git repo somewhere else to mirror my AUR PKGBUILDs. That being said, at the time of writing the OP, I was scrambling for a local copy before panicking and running off to the mailing list. Thankfully most of them are cloned now, so this shouldn't be much of a problem. If you want a good example of a way to manage multiple AUR packages, this is what I do (uses git subtrees): https://github.com/eli-schwartz/pkgbuilds/tree/base It has the advantage of preventing common maintainer mistakes (forgetting to update .SRCINFO/updpkgsums, autofilling default commit messages, handling remotes on-the-fly for new packages, etc.) Basically, additional reasons for being ordered about this sort of thing, in case you weren't convinced already. :) Oh sweet! I currently just have a dedicated subfolder for my AUR PKGBUILDs, but none of the niceties that this provides. Thanks a bunch!
Re: [aur-general] Disconcerting commit dates and lack of comments for slickpicker
I'll be re-putting the updates on the AUR. Hopefully they don't disappear this time. I'll have to make local clones of all my AUR packages so this doesn't happen again.
[aur-general] Disconcerting commit dates and lack of comments for slickpicker
There was a comment earlier about a PyQt4 <-> PyQt5 Error with slickpicker and mikidown on mikidown. I woke up thinking that it was due to them not updating a PKGBUILD, but... https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/slickpicker/ https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/slickpicker-git/ I checked the AUR3 archive and the data up there only matches the initial import. Even more disturbing is the fact that the comment I left about putting a proper pkgver() on slickpicker-git is missing. That was something I clearly remember doing this month. Can someone check the activity log of the AUR servers? I'm pretty sure there had to be some unusual activity because I clearly remember updating those packages for their pyqt5 updates.
[aur-general] fbterm-git has an AUR git repo, but it isn't available in the web view?
fbterm-git has an AUR git repo, but it isn't available in the web view for some reason. A clone of the package git repo shows a PKGBUILD and an INSTALL file. But when I try to visit the corresponding overview page, it says that it's not found. Relevant URLs: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/fbterm-git ssh://a...@aur.archlinux.org/fbterm-git.git - ShadowKyogre
Re: [aur-general] [AUR4] Unsure whether to adopt, wait for maintainer to re-upload, and/or merge packages
On 07/17/2015 02:34 PM, Giancarlo Razzolini wrote: Em 15-07-2015 13:45, ShadowKyogre escreveu: Decided to email the submitter yesterday. Should I wait for a response for about a week? I don't think there are any hard rules on that. I mailed him on a Friday. If I didn't got a response, by Monday I'd took over the package. Truth be told, they had 2 months, at least, to be aware and do something. I think this was just a courtesy, but in my case the maintainer did answered me. In yours it might do down differently. Cheers, Giancarlo Razzolini I re-uploaded the relevant PKGBUILD to the AUR4 at https://aur4.archlinux.org/packages/mse-mtg/ (I still need to adjust the descriptions and dependencies, but everything is split properly). With the packages that're still here, https://aur4.archlinux.org/packages/magicseteditor-mtg/, should I file merge and/or deletion requests? - ShadowKyogre
Re: [aur-general] [AUR4] Unsure whether to adopt, wait for maintainer to re-upload, and/or merge packages
On 07/14/2015 09:26 AM, Giancarlo Razzolini wrote: Em 14-07-2015 12:26, ShadowKyogre escreveu: I was planning to wait until August to make a decision, but, like the title says, I'm not sure whether I should just submit updated packages on the AUR4 that point to the same sources as magicseteditor-mtg, wait for elegua to re-upload the packages for magicseteditor-mtg*, or upload the second set of links and add elegua as a contributor to make sure he still has write rights. I originally orphaned the first two links because I was thinking that elegua might be interested in merging it into the packages he uploaded so there aren't duplicate packages floating around. I was faced with same decision yesterday. The original submitter of the tinyssh package didn't migrated to AUR4. I've contacted him by e-mail and he not only updated the packaged, as he made me his co-maintainer. I know people had warnings and all, but it wont hurt to be polite and ask. Cheers, Giancarlo Razzolini Decided to email the submitter yesterday. Should I wait for a response for about a week? - ShadowKyogre
[aur-general] [AUR4] Unsure whether to adopt, wait for maintainer to re-upload, and/or merge packages
These were the original uploaded PKGBUILDs, still referencing to a stale source: 1. https://aur4.archlinux.org/packages/mse-mtg/ 2. https://aur4.archlinux.org/packages/mse-mtg-phyrexian/ These were the uploads with the new content re-hosting, but the maintainer hasn't contacted me back about wanting to maintain the other MtG templates that're floating around (there's a few more): 1. https://aur4.archlinux.org/packages/magicseteditor-mtg/ 2. https://aur4.archlinux.org/packages/magicseteditor-mtg-base/ I was planning to wait until August to make a decision, but, like the title says, I'm not sure whether I should just submit updated packages on the AUR4 that point to the same sources as magicseteditor-mtg, wait for elegua to re-upload the packages for magicseteditor-mtg*, or upload the second set of links and add elegua as a contributor to make sure he still has write rights. I originally orphaned the first two links because I was thinking that elegua might be interested in merging it into the packages he uploaded so there aren't duplicate packages floating around.
[aur-general] [AUR4] Recommended procedure for merging several split packages into one pkgbase with split packages inside?
In the AUR, these packages are currently split off as their own separate packages without a common package base: mse-extrafoils-clights mse-extrafoils-fire mse-extrafoils-fracture mse-extrafoils-ghost mse-extrafoils-gold mse-extrafoils-jss mse-extrafoils-mosaic mse-extrafoils-old mse-extrafoils-parallel mse-extrafoils-ribbons mse-extrafoils-snow For the new AUR, I've prepared a split PKGBUILD and .SRCINFO for the AUR4 submission, but I get this error when I try to submit my finished work: Counting objects: 4, done. Delta compression using up to 4 threads. Compressing objects: 100% (4/4), done. Writing objects: 100% (4/4), 1.52 KiB | 0 bytes/s, done. Total 4 (delta 0), reused 0 (delta 0) remote: error: cannot overwrite package: mse-extrafoils-fracture remote: error: hook declined to update refs/heads/master To ssh://a...@aur4.archlinux.org/mse-extrafoils.git ! [remote rejected] master -> master (hook declined) error: failed to push some refs to 'ssh://a...@aur4.archlinux.org/mse-extrafoils.git' I was contemplating either filing a bunch of merge requests or a bunch of deletion requests before trying to resubmit, but there's probably a better way to handle this that I'm not sure of.
[aur-general] Merge vba-m-gtk-svn and vbam-gtk-svn
Requested merge for renaming since vbam-gtk is available in the community repos. The rename is to maintain consistency. Old package: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/vba-m-gtk-svn/ Renamed package: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/vbam-gtk-svn/
[aur-general] font-futhark and ttf-elder-futhark: Delete one or merge?
Fonts in question: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/font-futhark/ https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/ttf-elder-futhark/ I noticed that both of them share [this](http://www.mockfont.com/old/files/runettf.zip ), so I wasn't exactly sure whether I should delete the package I put up.
[aur-general] Package removal: ttf-theban
AUR Link: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/ttf-theban/ I still need to find a properly licensed Theban font, as that one in the link is for personal use, not freeware.
