Re: [aur-general] Merge supertux-svn -> supertux-git

Thanks! > From: rods...@gmail.com > Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 23:16:35 +0100 > To: aur-general@archlinux.org > Subject: Re: [aur-general] Merge supertux-svn -> supertux-git > > Hi, > > Merged+deleted supertux-svn into supertux-git. Thanks. > > -- > Cordially, > Alexander Rødseth > Arch Linux T

Re: [aur-general] disowning a couple of packages

On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 8:02 AM, Thomas Dziedzic wrote: > On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 6:40 AM, Peter Lewis wrote: >> On Monday 13 Feb 2012 19:03:55 Thomas Dziedzic wrote: >>> >> If you plan on adopting sage-mathematics, you should know that it is >>> >> currently unbuildable on archlinux, and some ot

Re: [aur-general] Which aur uploader is better, aurploader or burp?

2012/2/17 郑文辉(Techlive Zheng) : > 2012/2/17 Mike Sampson : >> 2012/2/17 郑文辉(Techlive Zheng) : >>> I realize there are two AUR uploader helper, aurploader[1] and >>> burp[2]？Which one is you guys using? What's the pro and con? >>> >> [snip] >> >> I was using aurploader until recently but gave burp a

Re: [aur-general] Which aur uploader is better, aurploader or burp?

2012/2/17 Mike Sampson : > 2012/2/17 郑文辉(Techlive Zheng) : >> I realize there are two AUR uploader helper, aurploader[1] and >> burp[2]？Which one is you guys using? What's the pro and con? >> > [snip] > > I was using aurploader until recently but gave burp a go after I tried > cower by the same aur

Re: [aur-general] Which aur uploader is better, aurploader or burp?

2012/2/17 郑文辉(Techlive Zheng) : > I realize there are two AUR uploader helper, aurploader[1] and > burp[2]？Which one is you guys using? What's the pro and con? > [snip] I was using aurploader until recently but gave burp a go after I tried cower by the same aurthor. I really liked cower and burp l

Re: [aur-general] Which aur uploader is better, aurploader or burp?

2012/2/17 Axilleas P : > 2012/2/17 郑文辉(Techlive Zheng) > >> I realize there are two AUR uploader helper, aurploader[1] and >> burp[2]？Which one is you guys using? What's the pro and con? >> >> Thank you >> Techlive Zheng >> >> [1]:https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=23393 >> [2]:https://aur.

Re: [aur-general] Merge supertux-svn -> supertux-git

Hi, Merged+deleted supertux-svn into supertux-git. Thanks. -- Cordially,  Alexander Rødseth  Arch Linux Trusted User  (xyproto on IRC, trontonic on AUR)

Re: [aur-general] Which aur uploader is better, aurploader or burp?

2012/2/17 郑文辉(Techlive Zheng) > I realize there are two AUR uploader helper, aurploader[1] and > burp[2]？Which one is you guys using? What's the pro and con? > > Thank you > Techlive Zheng > > [1]:https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=23393 > [2]:https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=3721

Re: [aur-general] Which aur uploader is better, aurploader or burp?

Burp is nice.

[aur-general] Which aur uploader is better, aurploader or burp?

I realize there are two AUR uploader helper, aurploader[1] and burp[2]？Which one is you guys using? What's the pro and con? Thank you Techlive Zheng [1]:https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=23393 [2]:https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=37216

[aur-general] Merge supertux-svn -> supertux-git

Hi, The developers of supertux recently switched to the git VCS. I've created a new packagethat compiles from git. Could someone merge the old supertux-svn package into the newsupertux-git package? supertux-svn: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=12229supertux-git: http://aur.archlinux.or

Re: [aur-general] Request for removal.

Hi, Removed for the reasons you mentioned and for silly naming. Thanks. -- Cordially,  Alexander Rødseth  Arch Linux Trusted User  (xyproto on IRC, trontonic on AUR)

Re: [aur-general] Removal request: mingw32-bdwgc

np :)

Re: [aur-general] Orphaning wxgtk-2.9

On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 1:11 PM, Maxime Gauduin wrote: > Hi guys, > > I'd like to know if it's possible to orphan this > package so Done. :)

[aur-general] Orphaning wxgtk-2.9

Hi guys, I'd like to know if it's possible to orphan this package so I can update it. wxgtk 2.9.3 has been out for more than 2 months, and the maintainer hasn't answered my one month old request to update it and flagging out of date. I'm maintaining

[aur-general] Request for removal.

[1]xvba-video-0.8.0 provides the ready built binary version of the open- sourced version of xvba-video. [2]xvba-video-open provides the same 0.8.0 version, with the exception that it builds it from source. Practically looking the only difference is that xvba-video-open needs the xvba-sdk package

[aur-general] Signoff report for [community-testing]

=== Signoff report for [community-testing] === https://www.archlinux.org/packages/signoffs/ There are currently: * 0 new packages in last 24 hours * 0 known bad packages * 0 packages not accepting signoffs * 0 fully signed off packages * 2 packages missing signoffs * 2 packages older than 14 days

Re: [aur-general] for queueRAM -- about perForce software issues

Thanks for your advices in detail! On 2012-02-16 07:41:59, Alexander R鴇seth wrote: > Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 07:41:59 +0100 > From: Alexander R鴇seth > To: "Discussion about the Arch User Repository (AUR)" > > Subject: Re: [aur-general] for queueRAM -- about perForce software issues > Reply-To: "