On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 02:41:42AM +0800, Rashif Ray Rahman wrote:
> On 28 November 2013 02:27, Lieven Moors wrote:
> > With devel functionality, do you mean header files? Wouldn't they
> > be needed to build non-daw-git anyway?
>
> I meant experimental functionalit
On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 07:28:17PM -0200, Gabriel B. Casella wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 6:43 PM, Lieven Moors wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I was wondering if it would be ok to let my package
> > (non-daw-git) depend on the ntk-git package instead of
> > ntk. The
On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 05:20:43AM +0800, Rashif Ray Rahman wrote:
> On 27 November 2013 04:43, Lieven Moors wrote:
> > I think technically, ntk-git should provide
> > ntk, and non-daw-git should depend on some git-release
> > of ntk.
>
> You can depend on ntk-git,
Hi,
I was wondering if it would be ok to let my package
(non-daw-git) depend on the ntk-git package instead of
ntk. The package ntk is not yet available in AUR, but
ntk-git is. I think technically, ntk-git should provide
ntk, and non-daw-git should depend on some git-release
of ntk. The downside f
Hi, I would like ask for a merge of
https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/non-suite-git/
into
https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/non-daw-git/
Both were providing the same package. I emailed the
author of non-suite-git, and he agreed to merge both packages
into non-daw-git.
Thanks,
lieven
Hi,
I have emailed the maintainer several times,
and supplied him with PKGBUILD's for this package.
In the beginning there were proplems because ntk
(which is a fork of fltk) was not in AUR, but very
soon somebody added a package for that.
After that I urged the maintainer to update the
PKGBUILD.
