On 2012-04-10 03:23, Oon-Ee Ng wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 11:41 AM, Hugo Osvaldo Barrera
> wrote:
>> The following packages should be deleted (or merged in some cases).
>
> It's great that you're clearing thing up, good job =). You really
> should include package names in the email as well
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 11:41 AM, Hugo Osvaldo Barrera
wrote:
> The following packages should be deleted (or merged in some cases).
It's great that you're clearing thing up, good job =). You really
should include package names in the email as well for posterity's sake
(once the TU deletes the ref
I agree with deleting my compizconfig-backend-kconfig4-git package.It's no
longer developed upstream.
(https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=51899)
Regards,Xiao-Long Chen
> Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 00:41:14 -0300
> From: h...@osvaldobarrera.com.ar
> To: aur-general@archlinux.org
> Subject: [au
https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=10863
Out of date for over six months, orphan, url is broken, last comment
says it didn't even build.
--
Hugo Osvaldo Barrera
On 2012-04-10 00:22, Daniel Campbell wrote:
> Hugo: thanks for pointing that out. I had asked about it on the forum and
> figured there was a way to work with it that way. How would I handle the fact
> that the tarball would have the readme and PKGBUILD in it already? Would they
> simply be dele
The following packages should be deleted (or merged in some cases).
https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=35912
Dependency no longer exists, orphan, and already almost certain this no
longer works. (this has been unsupported upstream for a long time).
https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?I
On 4/8/12, Daniel Wallace wrote:
> could you please merge -
> python-grapefruit https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=40104 to
> python2-grapefruithttps://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=58320
>
> and python-fabulous https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=40103 to
> python2-fabulous https
Hugo: thanks for pointing that out. I had asked about it on the forum and
figured there was a way to work with it that way. How would I handle the fact
that the tarball would have the readme and PKGBUILD in it already? Would they
simply be deleted with the src directory after a 'makepkg -c'?
Se
On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 9:57 PM, Hugo Osvaldo Barrera
wrote:
> The following are all orphan. They each have additional reason(s) that
> make them candidate for deletion.
>
>
> https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=45124
> Is out of date (marked 11 months ago). Stable version is newer than
> t
On 2012-04-08 08:08, Heiko Baums wrote:
> Am Sun, 08 Apr 2012 12:20:05 +0200
> schrieb Dirk :
>
>> Some of these seem to be up to date. e.g.:
>>
>> battery-applet-4-xfce4 0.9.1-1
>> https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=18086
>> Build depends on HAL (deprecated, but available in AUR), bu no
The following are all orphan. They each have additional reason(s) that
make them candidate for deletion.
https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=45124
Is out of date (marked 11 months ago). Stable version is newer than
this "testing" version.
https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=29428
F
On 2012-04-08 21:40, Daniel Campbell wrote:
> I uploaded a package that has the source included. The wiki mentioned
> binaries but nothing about languages like bash or Python that don't need to
> be compiled.
>
> Anyway, since I don't have a place to host it and fix the PKGBUILD, it needs
> to
On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 5:44 PM, oliver wrote:
> When I use
> http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=31429
> to create vala, it builds vala 0.16.0,
> but the package says it provides "vala=0.14.2".
>
> Not sure how such a PKGBUILD must be handled.
> If it says it provides "vala=0.14.2" but
> ju
Are you being glib? I achieved what I was aiming for (deleting a package).
Given the reponse I got on my observation ('patches welcome'), I don't feel
inclined to go through another hoop in yet another department just to be told
'no, do it yourself and we _might_ consider it'. No sense in repeat
Most systems already do the paper-trailing for us. They're known as logs.
- Original Message -
From: Karol Blazewicz
Sent: 04/09/12 04:23 PM
To: dlcampb...@gmx.com, Discussion about the Arch User Repository (AUR)
Subject: Re: [aur-general] Automated Package Removal
On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at
On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 8:16 PM, Daniel Campbell wrote:
>> It would also contribute less clutter to the mailing list and less hassle
>> for people that make innocuous mistakes like mine. Bureaucracy cripples
>> everything.
> Yes, it's annoying (and inefficient and illogical) to require someone to
Yes, it's annoying (and inefficient and illogical) to require someone to sign
up to another service to ask for something to be done on the service they're
having issue with. Departmentalizing things is a sign of bureaucracy. Most
people dislike it in government, hospitals, business, and other in
> It would also contribute less clutter to the mailing list and less hassle for
> people that make innocuous mistakes like mine. Bureaucracy cripples
> everything.
Is it really "crippling" to send an email to this list to request deletion?
Regardless, I'm not against allowing submitters to dele
On Mon, Apr 09, 2012 at 06:37:46PM +0200, Jan Steffens wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 5:44 PM, oliver wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 09, 2012 at 05:18:08PM +0200, Jelle van der Waa wrote:
> >> On 09/04/12 16:53, oliver wrote:
> >> > On Mon, Apr 09, 2012 at 04:23:23PM +0200, Markus Unterwaditzer wrote:
>
On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 5:44 PM, oliver wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 09, 2012 at 05:18:08PM +0200, Jelle van der Waa wrote:
>> On 09/04/12 16:53, oliver wrote:
>> > On Mon, Apr 09, 2012 at 04:23:23PM +0200, Markus Unterwaditzer wrote:
>> >> You should write that into the comments section of the package.
>>
Hey There,
Can you please delete the following packages? Some are removed in upstream
and don't have any maintainer on AUR:
https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=45906
https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=45908
https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=34328
https://aur.archlinux.org/pac
On Mon, Apr 09, 2012 at 05:18:08PM +0200, Jelle van der Waa wrote:
> On 09/04/12 16:53, oliver wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 09, 2012 at 04:23:23PM +0200, Markus Unterwaditzer wrote:
> >> You should write that into the comments section of the package.
> > [...]
> >
> >
> > OK, yes, good idea.
> >
> > D
On 09/04/12 16:53, oliver wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 09, 2012 at 04:23:23PM +0200, Markus Unterwaditzer wrote:
>> You should write that into the comments section of the package.
> [...]
>
>
> OK, yes, good idea.
>
> Done.
>
>
> Ciao,
>Oliver
Shotwell requires vala > 0.15, we have vala 0.16 in [t
On Mon, Apr 09, 2012 at 04:23:23PM +0200, Markus Unterwaditzer wrote:
> You should write that into the comments section of the package.
[...]
OK, yes, good idea.
Done.
Ciao,
Oliver
On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 8:49 AM, Dmitry Korzhevin
wrote:
> Hello, guys
>
> I am maintainer of rednotebook package in AUR:
>
> https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=21984
>
> I owned and updating this package about a year, and now i wish to
> maintain this package in official Community repositor
You should write that into the comments section of the package.
oliver wrote:
On Mon, Apr 09, 2012 at 03:53:27PM +0200, oliver wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 08, 2012 at 09:36:10PM +0200, Jelle van der Waa wrote:
> > On 08/04/12 18:15, Karol Błażewicz wrote:
> > > On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 18:13:24 +0200, olive
On Mon, Apr 09, 2012 at 03:53:27PM +0200, oliver wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 08, 2012 at 09:36:10PM +0200, Jelle van der Waa wrote:
> > On 08/04/12 18:15, Karol Błażewicz wrote:
> > > On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 18:13:24 +0200, oliver
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Also it confuses me that shotwell is on http://www.
On Sun, Apr 08, 2012 at 09:36:10PM +0200, Jelle van der Waa wrote:
> On 08/04/12 18:15, Karol Błażewicz wrote:
> > On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 18:13:24 +0200, oliver
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Also it confuses me that shotwell is on http://www.archlinux.org
> >> as well as http://aur.archlinux.org
> >
> > You
Hello, guys
I am maintainer of rednotebook package in AUR:
https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=21984
I owned and updating this package about a year, and now i wish to
maintain this package in official Community repository in Arch Linux.
How can i do this, and what i need to do?
Here is so
On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 4:28 PM, Allan McRae wrote:
> On 09/04/12 17:56, Daniel Campbell wrote:
>> I would contribute if a. My dev machine had internet and b. If i thought my
>> work had a chance of being considered. Given that I'm not a TU or a regular
>> among the devs, my work would not likely
On 09/04/12 17:56, Daniel Campbell wrote:
> I would contribute if a. My dev machine had internet and b. If i thought my
> work had a chance of being considered. Given that I'm not a TU or a regular
> among the devs, my work would not likely be accepted.
What a load of crap... Everyone submitted
=== Signoff report for [community-testing] ===
https://www.archlinux.org/packages/signoffs/
There are currently:
* 2 new packages in last 24 hours
* 0 known bad packages
* 0 packages not accepting signoffs
* 0 fully signed off packages
* 16 packages missing signoffs
* 5 packages older than 14 days
I would contribute if a. My dev machine had internet and b. If i thought my
work had a chance of being considered. Given that I'm not a TU or a regular
among the devs, my work would not likely be accepted.
I guess things will stay as they are until someone important dislikes them. I'm
not one f
On 04/09/2012 09:46 AM, Daniel Campbell wrote:
> It is simple, actually. When a user uploads a package, they should be given
> rights to remove it if need be. Simply claiming an orphan wouldn't grant the
> rights. That way only mods and original uploaders would get permission to
> remove package
It is simple, actually. When a user uploads a package, they should be given
rights to remove it if need be. Simply claiming an orphan wouldn't grant the
rights. That way only mods and original uploaders would get permission to
remove packages and it wouldn't be prone to abuse. It would also cont
On 9 April 2012 02:40, Daniel Campbell wrote:
> You guys should really give an option for people who upload packages to
> delete them through the same interface if, like me, they realize they screwed
> up. I had to subscribe to this list > before I could send an e-mail to ask
> for someone to
36 matches
Mail list logo
