On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 6:49 PM, Allan McRae <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Or, what would be even better, is to fix up the [community] repo back-end so
> it deals with packages with the repo name in them. Then we wouldn't need
> different ports for uploading for each arch and could just use "CARCH=
Daenyth Blank wrote:
On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 19:32, Evangelos Foutras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Daenyth Blank wrote:
Wouldn't it make more sense to integrate it with communitypkg?
+1
We could introduce the ability to override $CARCH by specifying a $FARCH
(I'm not good with n
Daenyth Blank wrote:
On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 19:32, Evangelos Foutras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Daenyth Blank wrote:
Wouldn't it make more sense to integrate it with communitypkg?
+1
We could introduce the ability to override $CARCH by specifying a $FARCH
(I'm not good with n
On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 19:32, Evangelos Foutras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Daenyth Blank wrote:
>>
>> Wouldn't it make more sense to integrate it with communitypkg?
>>
>
> +1
>
> We could introduce the ability to override $CARCH by specifying a $FARCH
> (I'm not good with naming) in the current
Daenyth Blank wrote:
Wouldn't it make more sense to integrate it with communitypkg?
+1
We could introduce the ability to override $CARCH by specifying a $FARCH
(I'm not good with naming) in the current environment.
Then we could do something like: `FARCH=x86_64 communitypkg' to upload a
Wouldn't it make more sense to integrate it with communitypkg?
On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 10:25 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> -Original Message-
>> Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2008 19:07:39 +0200
>> Subject: Re: [aur-general] Missing Packages
>> From: "Ronald van Haren" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] style="margin:0px;">
>> To: "Discussion about the Arch
-Original Message-
> Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2008 19:07:39 +0200
> Subject: Re: [aur-general] Missing Packages
> From: "Ronald van Haren" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] style="margin:0px;">
> To: "Discussion about the Arch User Repository (AUR)"
>
> On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 4:13 PM, Allan McRae <[EMAIL PRO
On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 4:13 PM, Allan McRae <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Evangelos Foutras wrote:
>>
>> Allan McRae wrote:
>>>
>>> Use the "communitypkg" script. Everything is automated there to prevent
>>> problems like this.
>>>
>>> Allan
>>
>> The thing is that I built the package on another m
Allan McRae wrote:
Never done that, but my guess is that you didn't remove the arch from
the package name. I don't think the community back-end is compatible
with makepkg3 package naming.
As I know other TU's do this too, it would be good if someone altered
the communitypkg to create a commu
Evangelos Foutras wrote:
Allan McRae wrote:
Use the "communitypkg" script. Everything is automated there to
prevent problems like this.
Allan
The thing is that I built the package on another machine running
x86_64 and then uploaded the package from my machine (i686).
I'll go over the com
Allan McRae wrote:
Use the "communitypkg" script. Everything is automated there to
prevent problems like this.
Allan
The thing is that I built the package on another machine running x86_64
and then uploaded the package from my machine (i686).
I'll go over the communitypkg script and see i
Evangelos Foutras wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Missing x86_64 Packages:
No new package supplied for xdotool 20080720-5!
--
This is an automated message. If you wish to stop receiving it twice
a day, fix the package(s).
This is weird. I uploaded the x86_64 package yesterday using `tupkg
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Missing x86_64 Packages:
No new package supplied for xdotool 20080720-5!
--
This is an automated message. If you wish to stop receiving it twice
a day, fix the package(s).
This is weird. I uploaded the x86_64 package yesterday using `tupkg
-p1035' and then tagged i
14 matches
Mail list logo
