Re: [aur-general] Package removal request
On Sat, Sep 11, 2010 at 11:11 PM, Nathan O wrote: > On Sun, Sep 12, 2010 at 12:55 AM, doorknob60 wrote: > > > wow, that was quick, thanks :) and OK ill post a link next time > > > > On Sat, Sep 11, 2010 at 10:46 PM, Thomas Dziedzic > > wrote: > > > > > On Sun, Sep 12, 2010 at 12:36 AM, doorknob60 > > wrote: > > > > (sorry if you got this twice, I'm pretty sure the first one didn't > > work) > > > > > > > > The fretsonfire-alarian-mod package needs to be deleted, I have > > replaced > > > it > > > > with the fofix package. > > > > > > > > > > Done. > > > > > > P.S. Next time post links. > > > > > > > Giving you a little warning as well, post at the bottom instead of the top. > Posting at the top is frowned upon. > OK, good to know, Gmail by default goes to the top. Makes sense though.
Re: [aur-general] Package removal request
wow, that was quick, thanks :) and OK ill post a link next time On Sat, Sep 11, 2010 at 10:46 PM, Thomas Dziedzic wrote: > On Sun, Sep 12, 2010 at 12:36 AM, doorknob60 wrote: > > (sorry if you got this twice, I'm pretty sure the first one didn't work) > > > > The fretsonfire-alarian-mod package needs to be deleted, I have replaced > it > > with the fofix package. > > > > Done. > > P.S. Next time post links. >
[aur-general] Package removal request
(sorry if you got this twice, I'm pretty sure the first one didn't work) The fretsonfire-alarian-mod package needs to be deleted, I have replaced it with the fofix package.
[aur-general] Deletion Request: fofix-svn
fofix-svn needs to be deleted since they have switched from svn to git and I've uploaded a fofix-git package to replace it.
Re: [aur-general] Removal request: fofix
Since lots of people and the arch-games repo already use the old name, and removing the package might throw people off, I dunno really. Also AUR votes. Don't think it matters too much since searching fofix from the AUR search or yaourt brings up fretsonfire-alarian-mod. On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 2:47 PM, Andrea Scarpino wrote: > On Saturday 13 February 2010 23:42:32 doorknob60 wrote: > > Someone made a package called fofix because my package > > (fretsonfire-alarian-mod) was out of date. I incorporated the changes > into > > my package and he has now orphaned fofix, so it's no longer needed. > Why you do not keep the upstream name? > > -- > Andrea `bash` Scarpino > Arch Linux Developer >
[aur-general] Removal request: fofix
Someone made a package called fofix because my package (fretsonfire-alarian-mod) was out of date. I incorporated the changes into my package and he has now orphaned fofix, so it's no longer needed.
Re: [aur-general] too many opera packages
I agree, similar situation as chromium packages used to be, just waaay too many. On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 3:36 AM, Stefan Husmann wrote: > Nuno André Jeremias de Aniceto schrieb: > > In the AUR discussion forum, I (quarkup) proposed to make a cleanup on the >> opera packages. >> >> the forum topic is this and it is active: >> http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=84446 >> you may find some more of the details in the forum >> >> there is the "opera" package along with the following ones (as explained >> on the forum): >> >> aur/opera 10.01-1 >> aur/opera-b1 10.10-1 >> aur/opera-beta 10.10-10 >> aur/opera-beta-qt4 10.00b3-1 (Out of Date) >> aur/opera-bundled 10.01-3 >> aur/opera-dev 10.10_4694-1 >> aur/opera-devel-qt4 10.10_4685-1 (Out of Date) >> aur/opera-dev-qt4 10.00_4493-2 (Out of Date) >> aur/opera-g4 LATEST-3 >> aur/opera-qt3 9.64-1 >> aur/opera-qt4 10.00-6 (Out of Date) >> aur/opera-shared-b1 10.10-1 >> aur/opera-static 9.64-1 (Out of Date) >> aur/opera-unite-devel-qt3 10.00_4440-3 (Out of Date) >> >> many of these packages are out of date or are duplicateds. >> Please check the proposal on the forum. >> >> > Hello, > > opera-beta-qt4 was deleted, because it was orphaned and a duplicate. The > author requested deletion in the comments. > > Please, if you are interested, read the forum thread. An Opera employee is > doing delightfull comments there. > > Regards Stefan >
Re: [aur-general] Java Dependency and Cross-Compilation Questions
Here's how I installed my chroot, it works very well (I don't even use any lib32 or bin32 packages anymore, just this): http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch64_Install_bundled_32bit_system On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 9:29 PM, Eric Bélanger wrote: > On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 7:24 PM, Aaron Schaefer > wrote: > > So, my new machine is up and running (and I figured out my previous > > packaging issues!)...so I'm updating my jGnash package > > (http://www.archlinux.org/packages/community/i686/jgnash/) to the > > latest release and there is also currently a bug report on the package > > (http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/16665). The bug report correctly > > states that jGnash will not run with openjdk6 (jre works just fine), > > so what is the current policy for handling that fact? > > > > I know that no other packages depend on jre directly, and the prefered > > method is now java-runtime, but doesn't that mean that openjdk6 users > > will just have this software silently fail? > > In this case, make it depends on jre. You could put a note in the > PKGBUILD to explain this dependency. And, when either openjdk or > jgnash release new versions, you could test to see if they work fine > together so you could switch back the depends to java-runtime. > > > Also, if you're building > > an i386 package on an x86_64 machine, is there an easy way to test the > > software to make sure that it's actually working on i386? Thanks in > > advance... > > > > you could setup a i686 chroot on your x86_64 system. I believe > there's info in the wiki. > > Eric > > > -- > > Aaron "ElasticDog" Schaefer > > >
Re: [aur-general] Package Removal Request
Thanks :) On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 1:23 AM, Ionut Biru wrote: > On 11/04/2009 08:53 AM, doorknob60 wrote: > >> This package isn't mine, but I merged antzek9's changes into my package >> and >> we pretty much agreed that this package is no longer needed. Also they >> updated some stuff so I don't even think this package works anymore >> anyways. http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=29532 See the AUR >> comments >> and my fofix-svn package ( http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=29226) >> if needed. >> > > deleted > > -- > Ionut >
[aur-general] Package Removal Request
This package isn't mine, but I merged antzek9's changes into my package and we pretty much agreed that this package is no longer needed. Also they updated some stuff so I don't even think this package works anymore anyways. http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=29532 See the AUR comments and my fofix-svn package ( http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=29226 ) if needed.
