> Perhaps this would be a good opportunity to ask everyone packaging CPAN
> modules to at least look at the provides string generated by pacpan. It
> cross-references all names with their associated source files to
> generate a comprehensive list.
I've moved it into [community] now, so it's be eas
On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 17:19:08 -0500
Daenyth Blank wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 14:36, Cedric Staniewski wrote:
> > Hi,
> > There are several packages in the AUR which provides exactly the same
> > package as perl-libwww from extra does. Apparently, it is a pacpan related
> > issue and there
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 11:57 PM, Phillip Smith wrote:
> Could someone please delete "kernel-devel-pae 2.6.31-23.fc12" from AUR.
>
> I have adopted "kernel26-fedora-pae" and I'll resubmit this 'devel'
> package with the correct name to match it's non-devel counterpart (ie,
> "kernel26-fedora-pae"
Could someone please delete "kernel-devel-pae 2.6.31-23.fc12" from AUR.
I have adopted "kernel26-fedora-pae" and I'll resubmit this 'devel'
package with the correct name to match it's non-devel counterpart (ie,
"kernel26-fedora-pae" and "kernel26-fedora-devel-pae")
2009/11/11 Jan de Groot
> libtool always used to be the default and will stay this way. Some
> packages require .la files, and it's a hard job detecting them when they
> get removed by default. Showing a warning with namcap is much easier
> than finding out the other way around.
>
> >From this li
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"
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 10:25 AM, Jan de Groot wrote:
> For libarchive we kept the .la files because static linking would fail
> without them. We don't do static linking with libarchive anymore, so if
> we ever decide to --disable-static, we should also remove the .la files
> in it.
There is stil
On Wed, 2009-11-11 at 12:34 +0800, Ray Rashif wrote:
> I remember the consensus used to be !libtool by default and now it's libtool
> in makepkg.conf, so what happened?
>
> In any case, on my system:
>
> ~$ for i in `ls /usr/lib/*.la`; do pacman -Qo $i | awk '{print $5}'; done |
> sort -u
>
> fa
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 9:35 AM, Ray Rashif wrote:
> 2009/11/11 Ray Rashif
>
>> 2009/11/11 Ronald van Haren
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 5:34 AM, Ray Rashif
>>> wrote:
>>> > I remember the consensus used to be !libtool by default and now it's
>>> libtool
>>> > in makepkg.conf, so what happened
2009/11/11 Ray Rashif
> 2009/11/11 Ronald van Haren
>
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 5:34 AM, Ray Rashif
>> wrote:
>> > I remember the consensus used to be !libtool by default and now it's
>> libtool
>> > in makepkg.conf, so what happened?
>> >
>>
>> some packages need the libtool files to function
2009/11/11 Ronald van Haren
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 5:34 AM, Ray Rashif
> wrote:
> > I remember the consensus used to be !libtool by default and now it's
> libtool
> > in makepkg.conf, so what happened?
> >
>
> some packages need the libtool files to function properly if that is
> what you mea
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 5:34 AM, Ray Rashif wrote:
> I remember the consensus used to be !libtool by default and now it's libtool
> in makepkg.conf, so what happened?
>
some packages need the libtool files to function properly if that is
what you mean.
Ronald
12 matches
Mail list logo
