Hi,
I opened the mentioned bug and I still think the same way. Let's hope
the changes will be conducted any time soon with all python packages.
The current policy is in my opinion the correct for a roll up
distribution as archlinux.
python-* -> python3
python2-* -> old python 2 version
Hector
On
On 19 June 2011 21:09, Bernardo Barros wrote:
> I think the solution is to be *very* consistent with packages names
> whatever the situation of the python3 version is right now.
> In other words: pick a guideline and stick to it. If
> python2-X/python-X is the way to go, no matter there is a pytho
Hi guys
Since the PKGBUILD of mkvtoolnix now has the additional option --disable-gui, I
want to create a package in the AUR which provides this gui, which is called
mmg (MkvMergeGui).
Right now I have it up here https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=49992 but
I'm not sure about some things
On 19 June 2011 21:09, Bernardo Barros wrote:
> I think the solution is to be *very* consistent with packages names
> whatever the situation of the python3 version is right now.
> In other words: pick a guideline and stick to it. If
> python2-X/python-X is the way to go, no matter there is a pytho
On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 4:33 PM, Gary Wright wrote:
> Well, if you requested deletion of one of my packages (dup, malformed
> pkgbuild, etc) I'd sure like to know why it was deleted. After the
> deletion, the package's page is deleted from the aur web interface,
> and the ML is the only record of
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 11:54 AM, cantabile wrote:
> On 06/16/2011 05:27 AM, Evangelos Foutras wrote:
>>
>> On 16 June 2011 05:19, Seven seven wrote:
>>>
>>> Please delete libhupnp-svn
>>> http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=44352and
>>> libtorrent-rasterbar-dev
>>> http://aur.archlinux.org/
On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 3:50 PM, Jason Reardon wrote:
> Should we not follow how it's done in the main Arch repos?
+1
sadly enough, there are currently 55 aur packages not following this
specification and a community package (FS#23139 [1] )...
[1]
https://bugs.archlinux.org/index.php?do=details
Should we not follow how it's done in the main Arch repos?
python-* is updated to reflect the current python standard, in this case
python3 and a new package is created, python2-*. Then, when pythonN is
released a new packaged python3-* will be created and python-* updated to
reflect the new pytho
Anyway, could you please just delete [1] for now so that I upload it
with its right name? Thanks.
On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 9:08 AM, Axilleas P wrote:
> Just yesterday I adopted python-jinja2 [1].
> There are also two other similar packages. One is python-jinja1 [2]
> and python3-jinja2 [3], relyin
On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 8:09 AM, Bernardo Barros
wrote:
> python3-* do not make sense on a rolling release distro.
>
> In Fedora, for example, they do. Then in Fedora 16 or whatever, they
> just switch names. No problem.
>
> For a rolling release distro I think we might think with an eye ahead
> t
python3-* do not make sense on a rolling release distro.
In Fedora, for example, they do. Then in Fedora 16 or whatever, they
just switch names. No problem.
For a rolling release distro I think we might think with an eye ahead
to avoid future problems.
For example, take to python packages, A and
On 06/19/2011 11:11 AM, Axilleas P wrote:
I don't know if the renaming patch was applied to AUR and if it's
possible to just rename the packages or they have to be deleted and be
uploaded again though. Let a TU tell us.
On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 12:03 PM, Hector Martinez-Seara
wrote:
Yes, I com
I don't know if the renaming patch was applied to AUR and if it's
possible to just rename the packages or they have to be deleted and be
uploaded again though. Let a TU tell us.
On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 12:03 PM, Hector Martinez-Seara
wrote:
> Yes, I completely agree. Python Packages are right now
Yes, I completely agree. Python Packages are right now a mess.
Hector
On 19 June 2011 09:08, Axilleas P wrote:
> Just yesterday I adopted python-jinja2 [1].
> There are also two other similar packages. One is python-jinja1 [2]
> and python3-jinja2 [3], relying on python2 and python3 respectively.
In data domenica 19 giugno 2011 10:14:14, cantabile ha scritto:
> Hello,
>
> We have four packages:
> aegisub [1] - this pulls from svn, from the 2.1.9 branch (2.1.9 will
> be the next stable version)
> aegisub-stable [2] - this compiles the stable version from the
> released tarball - 2.1
Hello,
We have four packages:
aegisub [1] - this pulls from svn, from the 2.1.9 branch (2.1.9 will
be the next stable version)
aegisub-stable [2] - this compiles the stable version from the
released tarball - 2.1.8 at the moment, which is quite old and probably
doesn't build anymore due
16 matches
Mail list logo
