On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 2:29 AM, Attila vodoo0...@sonnenkinder.org wrote:
At Samstag, 26. Juni 2010 07:38 Ray Rashif wrote:
[1] http://www.mail-archive.com/pacman-...@archlinux.org/msg03794.html
Thanks for this information. It seems that at no point it was thought about a
config variable and
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 1:20 PM, C Anthony Risinger anth...@extof.me wrote:
On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 2:29 AM, Attila vodoo0...@sonnenkinder.org wrote:
At Samstag, 26. Juni 2010 07:38 Ray Rashif wrote:
[1] http://www.mail-archive.com/pacman-...@archlinux.org/msg03794.html
Thanks for this
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 12:26 PM, Ray Kohler ataraxia...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 1:20 PM, C Anthony Risinger anth...@extof.me wrote:
On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 2:29 AM, Attila vodoo0...@sonnenkinder.org wrote:
At Samstag, 26. Juni 2010 07:38 Ray Rashif wrote:
[1]
On 30 June 2010 01:38, C Anthony Risinger anth...@extof.me wrote:
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 12:26 PM, Ray Kohler ataraxia...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 1:20 PM, C Anthony Risinger anth...@extof.me wrote:
On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 2:29 AM, Attila vodoo0...@sonnenkinder.org wrote:
At
C Anthony Risinger anth...@extof.me a écrit :
beh, i thought you were onto something... i didn't look at the makepkg
sources, but it is treating PKGDEST=' as if it was never set. so,
no dice :-(
however, if i use an absolute path (instead of .) it works alright.
in fact, i seem to have general
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 1:18 PM, Pierre Chapuis catw...@archlinux.us wrote:
C Anthony Risinger anth...@extof.me a écrit :
beh, i thought you were onto something... i didn't look at the makepkg
sources, but it is treating PKGDEST=' as if it was never set. so,
no dice :-(
however, if i use an
On 30/06/10 06:08, C Anthony Risinger wrote:
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 1:18 PM, Pierre Chapuiscatw...@archlinux.us wrote:
C Anthony Risingeranth...@extof.me a écrit :
beh, i thought you were onto something... i didn't look at the makepkg
sources, but it is treating PKGDEST=' as if it was
On 25 June 2010 01:37, Attila vodoo0...@sonnenkinder.org wrote:
At Donnerstag, 24. Juni 2010 14:39 Hilton Medeiros wrote:
Just remove it: rm -f goddamn-symlink.so
What is exactly the problem with it anyway?
Your hint is not very productive because you confound cause and effect. The
problem
At Freitag, 25. Juni 2010 08:29 Ray Rashif wrote:
In what kind of situation would someone have something against that symlink?
If you don't ordered it? -) Okay without joking: I think everyone will have
something against a thing what he never needs and i'm surprised that no one
recognize this
On 26 June 2010 00:59, Attila vodoo0...@sonnenkinder.org wrote:
At Freitag, 25. Juni 2010 08:29 Ray Rashif wrote:
In what kind of situation would someone have something against that symlink?
If you don't ordered it? -) Okay without joking: I think everyone will have
something against a thing
On Wed, 2010-06-23 at 19:08 +0200, Attila wrote:
Is there a way to disable the symbolic link creation? I install aur
packages using makepkg -ci, but the -ci switch combo does not delete
the symlink. I don't want them created in the first place, so can I
somehow turn off this behavior?
On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 07:25:54 -0500
ProfessorTomoe to...@lbjackson.com wrote:
On Wed, 2010-06-23 at 19:08 +0200, Attila wrote:
Is there a way to disable the symbolic link creation? I install
aur packages using makepkg -ci, but the -ci switch combo does not
delete the symlink. I don't
At Donnerstag, 24. Juni 2010 14:39 Hilton Medeiros wrote:
Just remove it: rm -f goddamn-symlink.so
What is exactly the problem with it anyway?
Your hint is not very productive because you confound cause and effect. The
problem is not to delete this file because i think everyone here can use
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 1:07 PM, Attila vodoo0...@sonnenkinder.org wrote:
For me this link is now a good help (and memory) to run namcap which i forgot
in
the most cases and therefore i found my peace with it. But i can understand
the
wish for a config variable if some don't need this.
At Donnerstag, 24. Juni 2010 20:06 Andres P wrote:
...but that's the whole point of bash/zsh completion. Do you put links to
$HOME
in /etc or use CDPATH? I mean, modern shells have facilities so let's use
them.
You be right and if you look at my other posting my favorite is that pacman can
Is there a way to disable the symbolic link creation? I install aur
packages using makepkg -ci, but the -ci switch combo does *not* delete
the symlink. I don't want them created in the first place, so can I
somehow turn off this behavior?
At Mittwoch, 23. Juni 2010 07:26 Allan McRae wrote:
Or do you mean that a makepkg -c will clean elder invalid symlinks?
This one.
Is there a way to delete not only elder symlinks and the destination too? Could
be very nice but is not a must.-)
See you, Attila
At Mittwoch, 23. Juni 2010 14:20 ProfessorTomoe wrote:
Is there a way to disable the symbolic link creation? I install aur
packages using makepkg -ci, but the -ci switch combo does not delete
the symlink. I don't want them created in the first place, so can I
somehow turn off this behavior?
Hello together,
since the new pacman a makepkg run creates a symlink to the package file in the
directory of the PKGBUILD. Example:
# ls -l *.gz
opera-snapshot-10.60-6378.2ah-i686.pkg.tar.gz -
/server/work/archlinux/repo/opera-snapshot-10.60-6378.2ah-i686.pkg.tar.gz
My differences to
On 23/06/10 07:01, Attila wrote:
Hello together,
since the new pacman a makepkg run creates a symlink to the package file in the
directory of the PKGBUILD. Example:
# ls -l *.gz
opera-snapshot-10.60-6378.2ah-i686.pkg.tar.gz -
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 7:31 AM, Allan McRae al...@archlinux.org wrote:
On 23/06/10 07:01, Attila wrote:
Hello together,
since the new pacman a makepkg run creates a symlink to the package file
in the
directory of the PKGBUILD. Example:
# ls -l *.gz
On 06/22/10 19:31, Allan McRae wrote:
On 23/06/10 07:01, Attila wrote:
Hello together,
since the new pacman a makepkg run creates a symlink to the package
file in the
directory of the PKGBUILD. Example:
# ls -l *.gz
opera-snapshot-10.60-6378.2ah-i686.pkg.tar.gz -
On 23/06/10 11:55, Baho Utot wrote:
On 06/22/10 19:31, Allan McRae wrote:
On 23/06/10 07:01, Attila wrote:
Hello together,
since the new pacman a makepkg run creates a symlink to the package
file in the
directory of the PKGBUILD. Example:
# ls -l *.gz
On 23/06/10 10:47, Ng Oon-Ee wrote:
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 7:31 AM, Allan McRaeal...@archlinux.org wrote:
On 23/06/10 07:01, Attila wrote:
Hello together,
since the new pacman a makepkg run creates a symlink to the package file
in the
directory of the PKGBUILD. Example:
# ls -l *.gz
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 10:48 PM, Allan McRae al...@archlinux.org wrote:
On 23/06/10 10:47, Ng Oon-Ee wrote:
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 7:31 AM, Allan McRaeal...@archlinux.org wrote:
On 23/06/10 07:01, Attila wrote:
Hello together,
since the new pacman a makepkg run creates a symlink to the
At Mittwoch, 23. Juni 2010 05:48 Allan McRae wrote:
Possibly... I do not use makepkg -i as I use makepkg -sr so it
removed the makedepends that will be unneeded in the future. Using
makepkg -c clean up the dangling symlinks.
I even use makepkg -c too and the symlink is still there. And
On 23/06/10 15:11, Attila wrote:
Or do you mean that a makepkg -c will clean elder invalid symlinks?
This one.
At Mittwoch, 23. Juni 2010 06:06 Dan McGee wrote:
It is also a very helpful symlink for those of us that like to run
namcap after building to check the package.
That is an advantage ... because i forgot in the most cases to run it and now
the motivation to do it is higher.-)
See you, Attila
At Mittwoch, 23. Juni 2010 06:06 Dan McGee wrote:
It is also a very helpful symlink for those of us that like to run
namcap after building to check the package.
I must correct myself and have a from my view better idea for this.
I suggest a new option -n (or --namcap) which runs namacp after
29 matches
Mail list logo
