On 16/03/13 10:14 PM, BlissSam wrote:
> Dear list,
>
> I noticed the package tuxcut has never been updated since the first
> submission 3 years ago.
>
> The tuxcut package should have been updated to 4.1 but the PKGBUILD stayed at
> 3.2. In addition, the source code linked to that PKGBUILD has be
Dear list,
I noticed the package tuxcut has never been updated since the first submission
3 years ago.
The tuxcut package should have been updated to 4.1 but the PKGBUILD stayed at
3.2. In addition, the source code linked to that PKGBUILD has become a 404 Not
Found.
I flagged out-of-date but
On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 2:38 AM, Tai-Lin Chu wrote:
> mysteriously? there is no uncertainty when a maintainer decides to
> remove the package. I feel any package should be fully controlled by
> the maintainer. To make things less "mysterious", it is possible to
> create remove history in the datab
Though I'm just a user, from speaking to you on IRC and using the
fantastic tools you've brought to Arch, I can see how much better off
this community is for having you around. Thank you for all your hard
work, Mr. Reisner.
> Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2013 22:16:58 -0400
> From: danielwall...@gtmanfred.com
> To: dr.neem...@gmail.com
> CC: aur-general@archlinux.org
> Subject: Re: [aur-general] Delete & Merge Request
>
> On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 10:07:56AM +0800, Eiro Neemous wrote:
> > O
On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 10:07:56AM +0800, Eiro Neemous wrote:
> Oh i forget to do that first= = done, thanks for ur notice!
>
> Daniel Wallace wrote:
>
> >-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> >Hash: SHA256
> >
> >Eiro Neemous wrote:
> >
> >>Hello,
> >>
> >>Please delete my package e-modules-ext
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Eiro Neemous wrote:
>Hello,
>
>Please delete my package e-modules-extra-eweather-svn (dups, there's
>eweather-svn),
>and merge geneet-svn into geneet-git,
>
>links attached:
>https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/e-modules-extra-eweather-svn/
>https:/
Hello,
Please delete my package e-modules-extra-eweather-svn (dups, there's
eweather-svn),
and merge geneet-svn into geneet-git,
links attached:
https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/e-modules-extra-eweather-svn/
https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/geneet-svn/
thanks in advance!
Regards,
Eiro
mysteriously? there is no uncertainty when a maintainer decides to
remove the package. I feel any package should be fully controlled by
the maintainer. To make things less "mysterious", it is possible to
create remove history in the database.
On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 6:20 PM, Connor Behan wrote:
>
On 16/03/13 05:18 PM, Tai-Lin Chu wrote:
> 1. 5M is probably an overkill. I think 1-2M is usually enough. There
> are simply patches and PKGBUILD
> 2. https://github.com/libgit2/php-git
> 3. I can help if anyone needs to code in php
>
> side notes: why dont we have package deletion for maintainer??
1. 5M is probably an overkill. I think 1-2M is usually enough. There
are simply patches and PKGBUILD
2. https://github.com/libgit2/php-git
3. I can help if anyone needs to code in php
side notes: why dont we have package deletion for maintainer??
On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 3:10 PM, William Giokas <1
All,
So in my spare time I was thinking about the AUR and how it could be
better. Back in January I commented on a bug[1] about integrating the
AUR and git to have a powerful, robust backend for the AUR. I think that
the original idea of creating one massive repository was inherently
flawed for mo
On Mar 16, 2013 2:17 PM, "Dave Reisner" wrote:
>
> Hey all,
>
> In the past couple of months I've been less active with Arch due to time
> limitations, and I feel like it's been even longer since I've really
> been active as a TU. I don't see this as something that's going to
> change in the near
On 16/03/13 01:16 PM, Dave Reisner wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> In the past couple of months I've been less active with Arch due to time
> limitations, and I feel like it's been even longer since I've really
> been active as a TU. I don't see this as something that's going to
> change in the near future.
On Sat, 16 Mar 2013 16:16:50 -0400, Dave Reisner wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> In the past couple of months I've been less active with Arch due to time
> limitations, and I feel like it's been even longer since I've really
> been active as a TU. I don't see this as something that's going to
> change in t
Dave Reisner wrote:
>Hey all,
>
>In the past couple of months I've been less active with Arch due to time
>limitations, and I feel like it's been even longer since I've really
>been active as a TU. I don't see this as something that's going to
>change in the near future. Given that, please conside
Hey all,
In the past couple of months I've been less active with Arch due to time
limitations, and I feel like it's been even longer since I've really
been active as a TU. I don't see this as something that's going to
change in the near future. Given that, please consider this my
resignation from
The discussion period for graysky's application is over.
It's time for the TUs to vote: https://aur.archlinux.org/tu/?id=68
=== Signoff report for [community-testing] ===
https://www.archlinux.org/packages/signoffs/
There are currently:
* 33 new packages in last 24 hours
* 0 known bad packages
* 0 packages not accepting signoffs
* 0 fully signed off packages
* 130 packages missing signoffs
* 18 packages older than 14 d
19 matches
Mail list logo
