On 27/05/13 07:27 PM, Masato Hashimoto wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Please remove libgee-0.6[1].
> It's idential to libgee06 on Extra.
> I forgot to confirm the legacy version of libgee is existent before
> submitting.
>
> Thx
>
> [1]https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/libgee-0.6/
Deleted, thanks.
signature
I used to maintain acroread. I had already updated it. How do you take over
the package without asking for first?. Limao must have contacted me then.
2013/5/27 Connor Behan
> On 27/05/13 01:14 PM, Limao Luo wrote:
> > The following packages
> >
> > https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/acroread/
>
Hi,
Please remove libgee-0.6[1].
It's idential to libgee06 on Extra.
I forgot to confirm the legacy version of libgee is existent before submitting.
Thx
[1]https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/libgee-0.6/
--
HASHIMOTO, Masato
On 28.05.2013 00:28, Zack Buhman wrote:
> On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 12:19:49AM +0200, Sven-Hendrik Haase wrote:
>> Next time please just contact me directly for tiny things like these.
> I'll keep this in mind.
>
>> This should be considered a bug. I fixed the package and pushed it.
> Thanks.
>
>> Ho
I'd like to suggest [1] be removed as it is identical to the plain
firestarter package [2], except with one patch commented out. Seems
wasteful to have a separate package just to comment 1 patch.
[1] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/firestarter-gtkstatusicon/
[2] https://aur.archlinux.org/packa
In the normal development of my application, I renamed the pkgname of my
PKGBUILD, and accidentally caused a duplicate program entry.
Can I please get https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/wifiz/ either removed,
or merged into https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/wifiz-git/? wifiz-git is
the updated ve
On Thursday, May 23, 2013 22:08:55 Felix Yan wrote:
To rename a package, please first submit a new package under the desired new
name, then send a merge request to the list.
In your case, please first submit package 'lastpass-pocket', then I or someone
else could do the two merges for you, tha
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 12:19:49AM +0200, Sven-Hendrik Haase wrote:
> Next time please just contact me directly for tiny things like these.
I'll keep this in mind.
> This should be considered a bug. I fixed the package and pushed it.
Thanks.
> However, is there really any merit in making a pyth
On 27.05.2013 22:36, Zack Buhman wrote:
> I was in the process of creating a python3 package [1] for flask, but
> I've noticed python2-flask [2] seems to conflicts+replace
> "python-flask". I imagine this was for historical reasons, but this
> introduces probably unintentional behavior when a packa
aur/python-flask-git [1] has been marked out of date since 2012, and in
addition I've personally emailed said maintainer about the issue, with
no reply.
It seems he created a package designed before extra/python provided
python3 rather than python2. As written, however, he's attempting to
package
I was in the process of creating a python3 package [1] for flask, but
I've noticed python2-flask [2] seems to conflicts+replace
"python-flask". I imagine this was for historical reasons, but this
introduces probably unintentional behavior when a package provides
python-flask (the python3 version of
On 2013-05-27 16:40 -0300
Thiago Kenji Okada wrote:
>Ok, did it. Can you please delete libtiff-so4?
deleted, thanks
On 27/05/13 01:14 PM, Limao Luo wrote:
> The following packages
>
> https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/acroread/
> https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/dosbox-svn/
> https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/violet/
>
> are all broken atm, and have been for a while. The maintainer's email
> bounces, and acr
The following packages
https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/acroread/
https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/dosbox-svn/
https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/violet/
are all broken atm, and have been for a while. The maintainer's email
bounces, and acroread even has a solution in the comments. I would
Ok, did it. Can you please delete libtiff-so4?
2013/5/27 Rob Til Freedmen
> >
> >
> > A better name to this package would be libtiff4. But there is already a
> > package named libtiff4 [2] that download the package from Ubuntu. I think
> > this package should be renamed to libtiff4-ubuntu and s
Em 27/05/2013 15:53, Rob Til Freedmen escreveu:
A better name to this package would be libtiff4. But there is already a
package named libtiff4 [2] that download the package from Ubuntu. I
think
this package should be renamed to libtiff4-ubuntu and so my package can
be
named libtiff4.
libti
>
>
> A better name to this package would be libtiff4. But there is already a
> package named libtiff4 [2] that download the package from Ubuntu. I think
> this package should be renamed to libtiff4-ubuntu and so my package can be
> named libtiff4.
>
libtiff4 is unmaintained - just take it over an
I just pushed a package named libtiff-so4 [1] that builds from source an
older version of libtiff (3.9.7) and links to libtiff.so.4, since some
program/packages depends on it (like Scilab's SIVP), as can be seem here
[3].
A better name to this package would be libtiff4. But there is already a
pack
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 7:47 PM, Maxime Gauduin wrote:
>
>
> Disowned the first, go grab it :) The second belongs to a TU, left it as
> is. I'll try to remind him if he shows up on IRC.
>
Thank you Maxime. First package updated. Waiting for the second package.
--
Siddhartha
On Mon, 2013-05-27 at 19:46 +0530, Siddhartha Sahu wrote:
> Hi!
>
> There are two AUR packages that I'm using personally, and they haven't been
> updated for a while. I have also indicated so to the maintainers both in
> comments and using email to their respective email ids (on 9th May)
>
> I ha
On Mon, 2013-05-27 at 16:11 +0200, Krzysztof AS wrote:
> Hi,
> Few requests.. Cause this names living in 'perl provides',
> I think that's good enough reason to delete..
>
> --
> perl-exporter
> http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=36038
> --
Hi!
There are two AUR packages that I'm using personally, and they haven't been
updated for a while. I have also indicated so to the maintainers both in
comments and using email to their respective email ids (on 9th May)
I haven't received any reply yet. I have written the new PKGBUILDs myself
so
Hi,
Few requests.. Cause this names living in 'perl provides',
I think that's good enough reason to delete..
--
perl-exporter
http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=36038
--
perl-extutils-command
http://aur.a
On Mon, 2013-05-27 at 10:25 +0200, Arthur Darcet wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Could you please merge plex [1] into plexmediaserver [2] : both are
> providing the same package and plex has been flagged out of date for the
> past two months. There also has been no answer to my two-month old comment
> asking the
On Monday, May 27, 2013 10:25:45 Arthur Darcet wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Could you please merge plex [1] into plexmediaserver [2] : both are
> providing the same package and plex has been flagged out of date for the
> past two months. There also has been no answer to my two-month old comment
> asking the d
Hi,
Could you please merge plex [1] into plexmediaserver [2] : both are
providing the same package and plex has been flagged out of date for the
past two months. There also has been no answer to my two-month old comment
asking the difference between the two packages.
Thanks,
Arthur
[1] https://a
=== Signoff report for [community-testing] ===
https://www.archlinux.org/packages/signoffs/
There are currently:
* 18 new packages in last 24 hours
* 0 known bad packages
* 0 packages not accepting signoffs
* 0 fully signed off packages
* 24 packages missing signoffs
* 2 packages older than 14 day
27 matches
Mail list logo
