Re: [aur-general] Changes in Arch packaging standards

2013-12-06 Thread Rashif Ray Rahman
On 6 December 2013 17:25, Sergej Pupykin wrote: > Bartłomiej Piotrowski proposed packaging standard changes: Where is this proposal? I think he simply meant that it is the current practice. > if there are 2 versions of some package foobar, then older version (1.0 > for example) must be named as

Re: [aur-general] Cleanup arch2gem mess

2013-12-06 Thread Evgeniy Alekseev
On Friday 06 December 2013 06:04:37 Anatol Pomozov wrote: > I repacked and cleaned gem2arch. Could you please merge > > https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/gem2arch-ruby/ > > into > > https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/gem2arch/ Done too. -- С уважением, Е.Алексеев. Sincerely yours, E.Alekseev.

Re: [aur-general] Cleanup arch2gem mess

2013-12-06 Thread Anatol Pomozov
Hi, Thanks. I repacked and cleaned gem2arch. Could you please merge https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/gem2arch-ruby/ into https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/gem2arch/ On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 12:34 AM, Evgeniy Alekseev wrote: > On Thursday 05 December 2013 22:04:53 Anatol Pomozov wrote: >> I

Re: [aur-general] Changes in Arch packaging standards

2013-12-06 Thread Lukas Jirkovsky
On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 10:25 AM, Sergej Pupykin wrote: > > Hi, > > Bartłomiej Piotrowski proposed packaging standard changes: > if there are 2 versions of some package foobar, then older version (1.0 > for example) must be named as foobar1-1.0 and newer version (2.0 for > example) must be named as

Re: [aur-general] Changes in Arch packaging standards

2013-12-06 Thread Jelle van der Waa
On 12/06/13 at 10:22am, Jerome Leclanche wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA512 > > On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 9:59 AM, Sven-Hendrik Haase wrote: > > On 06.12.2013 10:45, Sergej Pupykin wrote: > >> At Fri, 06 Dec 2013 09:42:11 +0001, > >> Maxime Gauduin wrote: > >>> I would chang

Re: [aur-general] Changes in Arch packaging standards

2013-12-06 Thread Sven-Hendrik Haase
On 06.12.2013 11:31, Sergej Pupykin wrote: > At Fri, 6 Dec 2013 10:22:35 +, > Jerome Leclanche wrote: >> Sensitive topic: Why doesn't arch support multiple versions for the >> same packages? > Another sensitive topic is removing packages without notification > refering to nonexistent rule. > >

Re: [aur-general] Changes in Arch packaging standards

2013-12-06 Thread Sergej Pupykin
At Fri, 6 Dec 2013 10:22:35 +, Jerome Leclanche wrote: > Sensitive topic: Why doesn't arch support multiple versions for the > same packages? Another sensitive topic is removing packages without notification refering to nonexistent rule. WTF? :S

Re: [aur-general] Changes in Arch packaging standards

2013-12-06 Thread Jerome Leclanche
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 9:59 AM, Sven-Hendrik Haase wrote: > On 06.12.2013 10:45, Sergej Pupykin wrote: >> At Fri, 06 Dec 2013 09:42:11 +0001, >> Maxime Gauduin wrote: >>> I would change that rule a bit, because wxgtk is a special case. The >>> 2.9

Re: [aur-general] Changes in Arch packaging standards

2013-12-06 Thread Sven-Hendrik Haase
On 06.12.2013 10:45, Sergej Pupykin wrote: > At Fri, 06 Dec 2013 09:42:11 +0001, > Maxime Gauduin wrote: >> I would change that rule a bit, because wxgtk is a special case. The >> 2.9 branch is a devel branch, keeping wxgtk for the stable branch and >> adding a suffix for the devel branch makes

Re: [aur-general] Changes in Arch packaging standards

2013-12-06 Thread Sergej Pupykin
At Fri, 06 Dec 2013 09:42:11 +0001, Maxime Gauduin wrote: > > > > I would change that rule a bit, because wxgtk is a special case. The > 2.9 branch is a devel branch, keeping wxgtk for the stable branch and > adding a suffix for the devel branch makes sense. Speaking of wxgtk, > now that 3.0

Re: [aur-general] Changes in Arch packaging standards

2013-12-06 Thread Maxime Gauduin
On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 10:25 AM, Sergej Pupykin wrote: Hi, Bartłomiej Piotrowski proposed packaging standard changes: if there are 2 versions of some package foobar, then older version (1.0 for example) must be named as foobar1-1.0 and newer version (2.0 for example) must be named as fooba

[aur-general] Changes in Arch packaging standards

2013-12-06 Thread Sergej Pupykin
Hi, Bartłomiej Piotrowski proposed packaging standard changes: if there are 2 versions of some package foobar, then older version (1.0 for example) must be named as foobar1-1.0 and newer version (2.0 for example) must be named as foobar-2.0. I did not see such rule yet on https://wiki.archlinux.

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

2013-12-06 Thread Arch Website Notification
=== Signoff report for [community-testing] === https://www.archlinux.org/packages/signoffs/ There are currently: * 4 new packages in last 24 hours * 0 known bad packages * 0 packages not accepting signoffs * 2 fully signed off packages * 100 packages missing signoffs * 0 packages older than 14 day

Re: [aur-general] Delete and Merge requests

2013-12-06 Thread Evgeniy Alekseev
On Friday 06 December 2013 00:58:11 Doug Newgard wrote: > **DELETE** > > Dead, source gone: > https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/triplexinvaders/ > (with that name, I don't want to hunt too hard for alternative on this one > :D) https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/hunnyb/ > https://aur.archlinux.

Re: [aur-general] Cleanup arch2gem mess

2013-12-06 Thread Evgeniy Alekseev
On Thursday 05 December 2013 22:04:53 Anatol Pomozov wrote: > I own several packages with the same functionality. > > packages > https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/gem2arch/ > https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/gem2arch-git/ > > should be removed as their upstream project is dead. In fact its > f