Re: [aur-general] [REVIEW REQUEST] python-viivakoodi

2016-12-01 Thread Eli Schwartz via aur-general
On 12/01/2016 08:24 PM, Quentin Bourgeois wrote: > I finally managed to upload to AUR[0]. I had to made some > modification[1] in order to pass the different hooks on the server but > I think they would be ok. So I see... especially the "every commit must have a .SRCINFO". I had kind of sort of

Re: [aur-general] [REVIEW REQUEST] python-viivakoodi

2016-12-01 Thread Quentin Bourgeois
On 16-11-29 23:59:45, Eli Schwartz via aur-general wrote: > On 11/29/2016 08:19 PM, Quentin Bourgeois wrote: > > Ouch, one new try :p > > Looks good to me. I'd say it is ready to upload to the AUR. > Hi, I finally managed to upload to AUR[0]. I had to made some modification[1] in order to pass

Re: [aur-general] TU Application: Baptiste Jonglez

2016-12-01 Thread Baptiste Jonglez
Hi Nicohood, On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 04:23:27PM +0100, NicoHood wrote: > you do not need to move the packages as fast as possible into > community. I became TU month ago and arduino is still not in community > because some issues needed to be solved first. So quality and security > is more

Re: [aur-general] deadbeef-gnome-mmkeys-git orphan request pending

2016-12-01 Thread Giancarlo Razzolini
Em dezembro 1, 2016 2:17 张海 via aur-general escreveu: I filed an orphan request for deadbeef-gnome-mmkeys-git because it's long-broken and current maintainer is still MIA, but it has been pending for 5 days without further progress. I'm also the current maintainer of the upstream repo, and I'm

Re: [aur-general] deadbeef-gnome-mmkeys-git orphan request pending

2016-12-01 Thread Doug Newgard
On Thu, 1 Dec 2016 12:17:30 +0800 张海 via aur-general wrote: > I filed an orphan request for deadbeef-gnome-mmkeys-git because it's > long-broken and current maintainer is still MIA, but it has been > pending for 5 days without further progress. > > I'm also the

Re: [aur-general] TU Application: Baptiste Jonglez

2016-12-01 Thread NicoHood
On 11/29/2016 12:08 PM, Levente Polyak wrote: > On 11/29/2016 11:33 AM, Baptiste Jonglez wrote: >> For a package in [community], an expired certificate for the upstream >> tarball is not a big deal, since it does not directly affect the Arch user >> installing the package. As a packager, you can

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

2016-12-01 Thread Arch Website Notification
=== Signoff report for [community-testing] === https://www.archlinux.org/packages/signoffs/ There are currently: * 3 new packages in last 24 hours * 0 known bad packages * 0 packages not accepting signoffs * 3 fully signed off packages * 96 packages missing signoffs * 4 packages older than 14