Re: [aur-general] There are too many unreachable loose objects; run 'git prune' to remove them.

On 6/9/16, G. Schlisio wrote: >> I just triggered a cleanup script to prune unreachable objects. The >> warning should be gone. > > the warning returned for me today. > g Same here. Horrible timing as I am about to go offline for 3 days. :( -- Eli Schwartz

Re: [aur-general] PKGBUILD for GnuSocialShell

On 07/13/2016 12:30 PM, Storm Dragon via aur-general wrote: > Howdy, > I have no clue how it got set to crlf. I made this in Vim on Arch lol. I > guess the original was from a template with the wrong format. This is fixed > now, however. > I also think I have a working fix for the version issue.

Re: [aur-general] PKGBUILD review request: libdime-hg

On 07/30/2016 11:56 AM, Alessandro Menti wrote: > Hi everyone, > I've just started writing some PKGBUILDs for some programs that are not > present neither in the official package repository nor in the AUR. > Specifically, I've packaged libdime [1] as a required dependency for the > X-Plane

Re: [aur-general] PKGBUILD review request: libdime-hg

On 07/31/2016 02:52 AM, Alessandro Menti wrote: > Hi Eli, > thanks for the review. > [...] > which suggests the tarball originally released by the authors was a > nightly release (incidentally, r187 corresponds to the current hg "tip"). > > Regarding the pkgver, I think using the ISO 8601

Re: [aur-general] Questions before submitting my first package

On 07/31/2016 01:21 PM, Henk te Sligte wrote: > The last stable release (4.11) of Dasher is from six years ago. However, > the package seems to be maintained, the last commit to the Gnome hosted > repository [2] is two weeks ago. So I presume it would be the smartest > to release it from git.

Re: [aur-general] My AUR account

On 08/14/2016 01:45 PM, Stefan Husmann wrote: > Hello, > > something happend to my AUR account. > git push > Permission denied (publickey). > fatal: Could not read from remote repository. All I can say is I tried cloning an aur package over ssh about ten/fifteen minutes ago and got the same

Re: [aur-general] My AUR account

More reports of the breakage and an item on the bugtracker. https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=215900 https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/50393 -- Eli Schwartz

Re: [aur-general] Request to check my PKGBUILD and suggest me some improvements

On 08/13/2016 03:47 PM, Patrick Eigensatz via aur-general wrote: > Then I read I could ask here for suggestions and improvements. > Is there something I didn't do which is e.g. a good habit? Or did I > something that I shouldn't have done? Including the feedback you have already received, it

Re: [aur-general] Request to check my PKGBUILD and suggest me some improvements

On 08/16/2016 01:12 PM, Patrick Eigensatz wrote: > No, the errors I experienced were all PKGBUILD syntax related mistakes; > also I didn't know I could use full bash syntax in the PKGSRC file this > is why I "extended" ./ to shto eliminate possible error causes > I would not have been

Re: [aur-general] Intellij IDEA Ultimate's

On 02/05/2017 07:17 AM, Reto Kaiser wrote: >> I personally prefer the flag thing > [...] >> The "-meta" thing is a little... > [...] >> The cleanest solution may very well be what we have now. > > Agree, the thing with the meta packages is a bit overcomplicated. > How about a single PKGFILE,

Re: [aur-general] [review-request] python-intelhex

On 01/23/2017 08:42 PM, Quentin Bourgeois wrote: > Thus, I decide to have a look at the PKGBUILD and suggest some > modifications I guess the maintainer will be glad to merge any > proposal, but did the community see any thing more to change ? > Basically I made use a lot more of its internal

Re: [aur-general] [review-request] moolticute

On 01/28/2017 07:55 PM, Quentin Bourgeois wrote: > As the daemon is expected to talk with an USB device I included an > udev rules that should match it and allow logged user interaction. > In addition, the project does not include any systemd service > file. The daemon is expected to run for every

Re: [aur-general] Python packaging: to build or not to build (Re: Review request for 3 related PKGBUILDs)

On 02/14/2017 06:11 PM, Bruno Pagani wrote: > Le 03/01/2017 à 22:36, Eli Schwartz via aur-general a écrit : > >> On 01/03/2017 04:12 PM, Leonid Bloch wrote: >>> Thanks! That was very helpful! >>> >>> All applied, except... "--skip-build" -

Re: [aur-general] Python packaging: to build or not to build (Re: Review request for 3 related PKGBUILDs)

On 02/14/2017 07:44 PM, Bruno Pagani wrote: > So, if I understand things well, python{,2} setup.py build should do the > same thing for most package, and any one of the two could be used to > then package the two versions? So this would work: > build() { > python setup.py build > } >

Re: [aur-general] pending merge request for python-git/python-gitpython, please cancel

On 02/14/2017 08:50 AM, Frederik “Freso” S. Olesen wrote: > Den 14-02-2017 kl. 12:19 skrev Daniel Milde: >> Yes, python-git should be probably renamed to something like >> python-gitlib and python-hg[1] should be renamed to python-git. > > If the sources are in a Mercurial repository, the package

Re: [aur-general] maynard-git package review request

On 08/21/2016 10:59 PM, Alive 4ever wrote: > I intentinally put the comments from PGBUILD-vcs.proto, thinking that > someday there will be git tag. Currently, there is no tag available. > `git describe` shows no output. I should clean this mess up. To quote the Wiki[1]... Both methods can also

Re: [aur-general] maynard-git package review request

On 08/21/2016 06:39 AM, Alive 4ever wrote: > Feel free to test this package. Remember to submit bug reports and > feedback upstream. Patches and suggestions for improving PKGBUILD are > welcome. Why so many comments? Other than that, it looks fine except for your usage of ${pkgname%-VCS}

Re: [aur-general] Split packages

On 08/23/2016 11:03 AM, Chi Hsuan Yen via aur-general wrote: > Using clean chroots is definitely the best way to build a package, while it > may not be practical for ordinary users. Installing a chroot takes quite a > few minutes, lots of network usage and several hunders of megabytes, which > is

Re: [aur-general] Split packages

On 08/23/2016 11:59 AM, Chi Hsuan Yen wrote: > Shamefully I didn't study the package guidelines carefully. I write > PKGBUILDs for Python packages by copying from the (somewhat out-dated) > Python PKGBUILD template [1], which is encouraging the wrong way. > Official packages, like python-pip or

Re: [aur-general] Split packages

On 08/23/2016 11:59 AM, Doug Newgard wrote: > How about the Pacman/makepkg developers? > https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/38160 I was unaware of that bugreport. But having read it, it seems to me that the problem there is when you cannot have a package both installed and uninstalled, and the two

Re: [aur-general] Split packages

On 08/23/2016 10:57 AM, Doug Newgard wrote: > You call multiple PKGBUILDs abuse. I call copying the entire source and > running > two builds in a single PGKBUILD abuse. There is only one build function for a > reason. If you wish to make that claim, I am sure you can come up with a better reason

Re: [aur-general] PKGBULD validation

On 09/05/2016 12:17 PM, Patrick Ziegler via aur-general wrote: > Hello everyone, > > This is my first mail in here and I am ready to submit my first > PKGBUILD to the AUR. But before I do that, I would like you to have a > look at it, to make sure that nothing is wrong with it. I have already >

Re: [aur-general] Disconcerting commit dates and lack of comments for slickpicker

On 09/01/2016 01:04 PM, ShadowKyogre via aur-general wrote: > Oh sweet! I currently just have a dedicated subfolder for my AUR > PKGBUILDs, but none of the niceties that this provides. Thanks a > bunch! Happy to help. :) Notice, it even has a function to import pre-existing AUR packages, if you

Re: [aur-general] PKGBULD validation

On 09/08/2016 07:49 AM, Patrick Ziegler via aur-general wrote: > I was actually looking at this yesterday, didn't realize it was from > you though. I was only looking at the pre-commit hook but the other > stuff looks really cool too, I will probably start using it. I have > one question though,

Re: [aur-general] mantisbt blacklisted?

On 09/08/2016 10:26 AM, David Runge wrote: > Helloes everyone, > > I was just trying to push a new version of mantisbt (1.3.1), which I > adopted from alucryd. > > However, I get this odd message: > > remote: error: package is blacklisted: mantisbt > remote: error: hook declined to update

Re: [aur-general] Disconcerting commit dates and lack of comments for slickpicker

On 08/31/2016 01:36 PM, ShadowKyogre via aur-general wrote: > I'll be re-putting the updates on the AUR. > > Hopefully they don't disappear this time. I'll have to make local clones > of all my AUR packages so this doesn't happen again. Why do you not already have local clones? It seems a

Re: [aur-general] PKGBULD validation

On 09/08/2016 01:01 PM, Patrick Ziegler via aur-general wrote: > v8 also adds a header w/ a timestamp so you cannot run mksrcinfo on > every commit, you have to actively check that PKGBUILD was changed, > but the *-git does not do that anymore so it really doesn't matter for > me. True. And there

Re: [aur-general] oleo package

On 09/09/2016 11:27 AM, Jude DaShiell wrote: > Has anyone figured out how to get that package to build and install yet? > It would be nice to have a spreadsheet cli users could use with more > available functions in it than sc or sc-im. I never did find out whether > oleo would fit this bill

Re: [aur-general] mantisbt blacklisted?

On 09/09/2016 06:05 PM, Johannes Löthberg via aur-general wrote: > Either the script that updates the blacklist hasn't been run yet, or the > server it's run on hasn't been updated recently, but no TU can really > help with this, alas. Well, I don't know the exact implementation. :o But I

Re: [aur-general] PKGBULD validation

On 09/07/2016 01:22 PM, Patrick Ziegler via aur-general wrote: > Thank you again very much for your insights. I have made the necessary > changes and will try to submit it to the AUR later in the evening, I > will also post the new PKGBUILDs here again just so you can confirm > that there is

Re: [aur-general] Split packages

On 08/23/2016 10:24 AM, Chi Hsuan Yen wrote: > Python packages are not good examples for this thread. Whyever not? It seems an excellent example to me... > I mention my script as I find it useful for handling such cases. As > Bruno said, using two separate packages is the choice. My script just

Re: [aur-general] Split packages

On 08/23/2016 09:11 AM, Chi Hsuan Yen via aur-general wrote: > At first I used split packages for python-* packages in my AUR repo. > However, since pacman commit e8deba3b87784ca14c9afc908046f36a3ad7578c, > [1][2] there's no way to build a subset of split packages. That is, people > who use Python

Re: [aur-general] Copy package from AUR archive

On 09/30/2016 01:43 PM, Yassine Imounachen via aur-general wrote: > Hello, > What are good practices of re-submitting deleted AUR3 packages? Namely > 'strongswan-git'. > There are no official good practices, but IMPHO, all packages migrated from the AUR3 (whether deleted or not) *should* have

Re: [aur-general] Copy package from AUR archive

On 09/30/2016 03:22 PM, Yassine Imounachen via aur-general wrote: > OK what I did really mean is how to update it Let's try that again. > the rules for submitting a deleted AUR3 package are of course the > same rules as for submitting a brand-new package. The old, AUR3 version will give you a

Re: [aur-general] Copy package from AUR archive

On 10/01/2016 09:55 AM, Yassine Imounachen via aur-general wrote: > Thank you everybody this is very clear. Sorry I did inadvertently enable > 'daily digest' , this is what explains my late response. > > On 1 Oct 2016 9:07 am, wrote: [...] >> When replying,

Re: [aur-general] [aur-dev] Missing Co-Maintainer Search Criteria on AUR

On 11/05/2016 04:55 AM, Lukas Fleischer wrote: > I actually wanted to implement this a while ago but deferred it because > I had problems finding a good UI. The two straightforward options are: > > 1. Adjust the maintainer filter such that it also looks for >co-maintainers... Which would

Re: [aur-general] Advice needed maintaining boost-compute

On 11/11/2016 12:14 PM, Julien JPK wrote: > To be honest I was just picking packages I was interested in, with the > idea of maintaining them on a longer term should it become necessary. I > understand that the packages I've chosen so far are not tremendously > active, I just thought these simple

Re: [aur-general] Advice needed maintaining boost-compute

On 11/11/2016 01:19 PM, Julien JPK wrote: > I have a few things to review before I start working on actually > significant package updates. I'll make sure I have a cleaner "AUR > maintaining" environment to avoid missing such obvious errors in the > future. I'll also make myself more acquainted

Re: [aur-general] "pepper-flash" naming?

On 11/14/2016 05:51 AM, Det via aur-general wrote: > I'm sorry but that's bogus. Not only did I ask repeatedly because I > wanted to get an answer, but since he gave me _none_, I asked the > mailing list instead. Wanting to get an answer is not inherently a problem. It does, however, show that

Re: [aur-general] delete request for msh-git

On 11/24/2016 05:47 PM, Myles English via aur-general wrote: > Hello, > Please could a TU delete > > https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/mshr-git/ > > it has been provided as part of dolfin-git for some time (I am the > maintainer). > > Thanks, > Myles > Use "Submit Request" from Package

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

On 11/27/2016 10:30 AM, Quentin Bourgeois wrote: > You are right I have remove this, my first goals was to sign my > PKGBUILD file I don't think its possible ? No, although the AUR is HTTPS. If people clone the package instead of downloading the snapshot (several AUR helpers can be configured to

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

On 11/27/2016 06:10 PM, Quentin Bourgeois wrote: > With this, I come with a simpler PKGBUILD[0] in which I push > modifications you advised. I also removed some dependencies that are > used for code coverage and building documentation, which I do not > install for now. > > Did we get to something

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

On 11/28/2016 06:20 AM, Levente Polyak wrote: > linux-mptcp > - you should use git+https:// instead of plain git:// even through the > CA world is a bit wonky it still authenticates the server and at the > very bare minimum adds confidentiality. Now that you mention it, this does seem rather

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

On 11/28/2016 11:26 AM, Levente Polyak wrote: > When using a commit hash you gain basically two things out of the box: > - get aware if wonky upstream changes something > - get an integrity value that a potential attacker must defeat, which > not be the easiest task for a full commit hash (for a

Re: [aur-general] Advice needed maintaining boost-compute

On 11/11/2016 11:37 AM, Julien JPK wrote: > Hello! > > I recently started maintaining small AUR packages (basically just > updating version numbers on git packages and so on), and I came into a > little situation when updating the boost-compute [1] package. Do you mean, pushing a new pkgver

Re: [aur-general] "pepper-flash" naming?

On 11/13/2016 03:33 AM, Det via aur-general wrote: > Why hell, > > Since the maintainer is throwing his tantrum, I decided it would be good > to ask the mailing list directly, should "pepper-flash" [1] be renamed > to e.g. "flashplugin-ppapi"? > > This would be more in line

Re: [aur-general] "pepper-flash" naming?

On 11/13/2016 02:01 PM, Det via aur-general wrote: > That reasoning is pretty obvious. Debatable... but thanks for actually (finally) spelling out your reasons in your initial post here, rather than simply assuming everyone thinks the way you do. I could think of a bunch of arbitrary names, not

Re: [aur-general] Fwd: [REPORT] Banned for reporting Out of Date CVS packages by Alucryd

On 11/04/2016 09:13 AM, Ake Doragon no Namida via aur-general wrote: > Hi, i have a problem with Alucryd from AUR. Just read and give me your > opinion. My opinion is that you are a troublemaker. >> Will you please stop flagging CVS packages that need absolutely no >> updating ? More than half

Re: [aur-general] Fwd: [REPORT] Banned for reporting Out of Date CVS packages by Alucryd

On 11/04/2016 09:35 AM, Levente Polyak wrote: > arbitrarily "bumping" VCS packages doesn't gain anything other then > creating fuzz and satisfy shitty AUR wrappers -- it should be avoided at > all means. With VCS packages there is noting like "out of date" in the > classical term and such PKGBUILD

Re: [aur-general] Fwd: [REPORT] Banned for reporting Out of Date CVS packages by Alucryd

On 11/04/2016 10:20 AM, Levente Polyak wrote: > I don't think its worth trying to comfort all AUR wrappers in the > way a PKGBUILD is handled. I have seen too often including horrible > hacks here and there because one wrapper does or doesn't do X or Y and > fails.Its not as harmful because at the

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

On 11/26/2016 01:01 AM, Florian Bruhin wrote: >> * Upstream does not provide any GPG signature of the tarballs nor >> commit signature. I've chosen to provide a detached GPG signature >> of the downloaded tarball with my GPG key. For me, its better to >> have this link-ability between the

Re: [aur-general] Package review bitcoin-classic

On 01/11/2017 01:15 PM, Bruno Pagani via aur-general wrote: > After a quick glance at your install file, I think it should be as > simple and short as this (+eventual notice for CoW): > post_install() { > systemd-sysusers bitcoin-classic.conf > systemd-tmpfiles --create

Re: [aur-general] TU Application: Bruno Pagani

On 01/10/2017 10:11 AM, Levente Polyak wrote: > certbot-user: > - I think it may change at some point, but right now like every python > package i know does -O1 on install Details on that changing? I haven't seen any discussion anywhere. Arch doesn't seem to have an explicit policy listed

Re: [aur-general] Package review bitcoin-classic

On 01/11/2017 12:01 PM, Tom Zander wrote: > I have not found out how pacman treats config files on upgrades, removes and > reinstalls. > The point here is that the config file should not be overwritten by the > package version on upgrade, it should not be deleted when the package is > deleted

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

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

On 12/02/2016 08:04 PM, Quentin Bourgeois wrote: > On 16-12-01 21:57:08, Eli Schwartz via aur-general wrote: >> 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 di

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

On 12/02/2016 08:04 PM, Quentin Bourgeois wrote: >> Which manpage/wiki? > I was thinking of the wiki page that give instruction with Python > PKGBUILD[0]. > > [0] https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Python_PKGBUILD Check that Wiki page again, I added a section on setuptools. Suggestions are

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

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. > Definitely, but its quiet fun to be faced with such problems. It's also quite fun even when you're loud. ;) > If you may I propose the following summary in

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

On 11/28/2016 06:29 PM, Baptiste Jonglez wrote: > On the other hand, if one day the TLS certificate becomes invalid (expired > certificate, untrusted CA, etc), the package would fail to build. I see > this as a significant drawback of using git+https://. When you say drawback, are you referring

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

On 11/28/2016 07:47 PM, Quentin Bourgeois wrote: > On 16-11-27 19:41:06, Eli Schwartz via aur-general wrote: >> On 11/27/2016 06:10 PM, Quentin Bourgeois wrote: >>> With this, I come with a simpler PKGBUILD[0] in which I push >>> modifications you advised. I als

[aur-general] xfce4-pulseaudio-plugin unused shared libraries [done right]

On 12/05/2016 02:41 AM, NicoHood wrote: > --> I hope this is in a new post now. Sorry Eli Schwartz, I did not > know that the ML gets messed up like this. Clicking Reply means it isn't a new post. The whole point of replying is that it links back to the email you were reading when you clicked

Re: [aur-general] xfce4-pulseaudio-plugin unused shared libraries [done right]

On 12/05/2016 03:07 AM, Eli Schwartz wrote: > On 12/05/2016 02:41 AM, NicoHood wrote: >> --> I hope this is in a new post now. Sorry Eli Schwartz, I did not >> know that the ML gets messed up like this. > > Clicking Reply means it isn't a new post. The whole point of replying is > that it links

Re: [aur-general] xfce4-pulseaudio-plugin unused shared libraries

On 12/04/2016 04:47 PM, NicoHood wrote: > I also got this suggestion on IRC. I added the LD_FLAGS=-Wl,--as-needed > to the configure command, but that did not help at all. Maybe I did it > wrong? > > The fact that more programs have this problem does not mean we should > ignore it. Also because

Re: [aur-general] Review request for 3 related PKGBUILDs

On 01/03/2017 03:51 AM, Eli Schwartz wrote: > and save on checking for updated source files in build(). Obviously, I meant to say "updated source files already checked in build". :D Specifically, not rerunning setuptools "build" ==> "build_py" in package() and skipping straight to "install" ==>

Re: [aur-general] Review request for 3 related PKGBUILDs

On 01/03/2017 03:14 AM, Leonid Bloch wrote: > I'd like to put 3 new packages in the AUR. They are a part of one > "kit", but are very different in functionality, therefore I think it > will be better to introduce 3 packages, instead of one, which contains > them all. You can see the details on:

Re: [aur-general] Review request for 3 related PKGBUILDs

On 01/03/2017 04:12 PM, Leonid Bloch wrote: > Thanks! That was very helpful! > > All applied, except... "--skip-build" - indeed it makes sense, but I > have never seen it with other Python packages. So I wonder if indeed it > is a good practice, or is there some reason not to include it? Well,

Re: [aur-general] About the editconfig in the resent patch in pacman

On 01/07/2017 07:13 PM, Pablo Roberto Lezaeta Reyes via aur-general wrote: >> I'd prefer no vim modelines and no editorconfig file. >> >> Allan McRae > > So.. you'll accept a patch removing all those modelinal from all the pacman > and makepkg and pacman-contrib and mkinitcpio code or just some

Re: [aur-general] Review request for a PKGBUILD

On 01/07/2017 11:59 PM, Leonid Bloch wrote: > Hi, > > I'd like to push the following PKGBUILD to AUR. It is useful for those > who want to use HDF5 files with LZ4 compression. > > There are two things that bother me about it: > 1) The upstream repository contains 4 directories: LZ4, BLOSC,

Re: [aur-general] Review request for a PKGBUILD

On 01/08/2017 12:42 AM, Leonid Bloch wrote: >> Any especial need to rm it? If it isn't used then you can just ignore >> that it is there. :) > > Space considerations? Is there a problem with removing them if so? No problem, I just figured if it only exists in the build directory anyway it might

Re: [aur-general] pacman-dev rejected mail Was: About the editconfig in the resent patch in pacman

On 01/08/2017 12:21 AM, Pablo Roberto Lezaeta Reyes via aur-general wrote: > Pacman-dev jthisnot accept my email and the automessage point to post the > message to this list so i just follow the intructions. Have you actually subscribed to pacman-dev? Otherwise, that is kind of weird, since the

Re: [aur-general] Update a pkg into aur

On 01/01/2017 01:52 PM, Stefano Capitani wrote: > Thank you for reply .. i have do this : > > mksrcinfo && git add * && git commit -m 'update to 0.9 release , removed > the unneeded file and optimize PKGBUILD' && git push origin master Alternatively, use my hooks:

Re: [aur-general] Review request for a PKGBUILD

On 01/08/2017 02:04 PM, Martin Kühne via aur-general wrote: > Bash gurus recommend keeping the quotes, as ${pkgname%-git} is also a > parameter, and we generally encourage those be quoted. Just as many gurus recommend the exact opposite if the *variable* is guaranteed to not have spaces. -- Eli

Re: [aur-general] Review request for a PKGBUILD

On 01/08/2017 04:35 PM, Bruno Pagani via aur-general wrote: > started partially because someone didn’t took it[0], but here see Eli > and Doug comments, this is really unnecessary. ;) Would this be a bad time to say that my personal style of choice is to over-quote? :p All I said was "appeal to

Re: [aur-general] Review request for a PKGBUILD

On 01/08/2017 05:42 PM, Martin Kühne via aur-general wrote: > Thanks for my sunday night's identiy crisis, I can no longer tell > whether I was implying myself as an authority there or not. Or whether > I intended to imply somesuch. Happy to be of service. :p -- Eli Schwartz signature.asc

Re: [aur-general] Wrong username in disown notification

On 12/21/2016 12:27 AM, Florian Bruhin wrote: > Huh. I haven't had my first coffee yet, but when I open a bug I can > only select a category, with the most accurate ones being "web sites" > and "Arch projects" - both of which seemed kinda unspecific for an AUR > mail bug. > > Am I missing

Re: [aur-general] Wrong username in disown notification

On 12/20/2016 11:58 PM, Florian Bruhin wrote: > Hey, > > I just added blueyed as a co-maintainer for the rxvt-unicode-patched > package and then disowned it (transferring the ownership to him). > > This sent me a wrong mail: > > The package rxvt-unicode-patched [1] was disowned by blueyed

Re: [aur-general] Wrong username in disown notification

On 12/21/2016 01:22 AM, Florian Bruhin wrote: > If you're not aware of different projects being a thing, the > possibility of getting a different bug report form after following a > link to a list of bugs doesn't really come to mind ;) Well... it is a bit strange. But Flyspray, warts and all, is

Re: [aur-general] Wrong username in disown notification

On 12/21/2016 10:46 AM, Frederik “Freso” S. Olesen via aur-general wrote: > Den 21-12-2016 kl. 07:34 skrev Eli Schwartz via aur-general: >> Bugzilla is the new hotness, > > For some definition of "new", I guess.  > > (Bugzilla being 18 years old n

Re: [aur-general] namcap question

On 12/22/2016 11:15 AM, Tom Zander wrote: > I’m quite new to arch packaging and when I noticed some packages having been > orphaned I thought I’d learn. > > In reading the wiki and learning more I found about about namcap. > I have one warning that I don’t understand and am not sure if its

Re: [aur-general] Review and a bit of other help request

On 03/23/2017 04:32 PM, Konstantin Gizdov wrote: > You pointed out that "make" already reads "MAKEFLAGS" on its own. Well, > I only added this, because it didn't for me for some reason. Maybe this > was a bug in the build scripts and has since been fixed. But when I > picked up ROOT and the rest

Re: [aur-general] Review and a bit of other help request

On 03/23/2017 06:08 PM, Konstantin Gizdov wrote: > About the makedepends - for Pythia, most of the available flags don't > even have packages in the Arch universe, so I cannot simply declare them > makedepends. The ones that exist are on AUR and I would overstate it if > I said they were

Re: [aur-general] Should "base" packages be listed as dependencies?

On 03/23/2017 02:29 AM, Xyne wrote: >> Well, it also means, for example, that you don't have to keep listing >> things like bash and glibc in literally hundreds of PKGBUILDs. > > I understand that argument, but it is framed as if people are writing hundreds > of PKGBUILDs at once and the added

Re: [aur-general] Should "base" packages be listed as dependencies?

On 03/23/2017 03:30 AM, Ralf Mardorf wrote: > On Wed, 22 Mar 2017 22:31:34 -0400, Eli Schwartz via aur-general wrote: >> nano (vi is the standard, and *I* don't even want to include that >> because vim) > > For modern Linux distros nano has become a standard as well. What's

Re: [aur-general] Should "base" packages be listed as dependencies?

On 03/22/2017 05:36 PM, NicoHood wrote: > On 03/22/2017 10:12 PM, Doug Newgard wrote: >> On Wed, 22 Mar 2017 21:45:13 +0100 >> Baptiste Jonglez wrote: >>> >>> Am I missing something obvious? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Baptiste >> >> There's no specific rule about it. Some

Re: [aur-general] Review and a bit of other help request

On 03/22/2017 09:53 PM, Konstantin Gizdov wrote: > Hi again, > > So I updated xrootd and pythia and submitted the relevant deletion > requests. Now, can I get some package reviews? Thanks. I know nothing about the specific packages in question, so I will merely make some general PKGBUILD

Re: [aur-general] Should "base" packages be listed as dependencies?

On 03/22/2017 09:07 PM, beest wrote: > I'm also on the side of explicitly assuming that base is installed (and > having the wiki and PKGBUILD dox reflect as much), but before that there > should possibly be a discussion about what actually belongs in base in > the first place. A few folks are of

Re: [aur-general] Should "base" packages be listed as dependencies?

On 03/22/2017 10:02 PM, Daniel Micay via aur-general wrote: > Doesn't the standard chroot end up with all of base and base-devel or > is that not currently the case? The "standard chroot" is a help message in makechrootpkg saying ``` The chroot "root" directory must be created via the following

Re: [aur-general] Should "base" packages be listed as dependencies?

On 03/22/2017 11:24 PM, Xyne wrote: > The PKGBUILD should specify all necessary information for full dependency > resolution without assuming anything other than base-devel*. Extending the > assumption to the full base group just so some packagers can avoid typing a > few extra words *once* when

Re: [aur-general] Review and a bit of other help request

On 03/17/2017 09:48 AM, Konstantin Gizdov wrote: > xrootd-abi0 (this exists as a work around for other maintainer not updating > package) Don't do this. It violates the rules of the AUR and now that you have drawn our attention to it, expect someone to file a deletion request. > [...] Pythia,

Re: [aur-general] Review and a bit of other help request

On 03/17/2017 02:17 PM, Konstantin Gizdov wrote: > Hi Eli and Sebastian, > > OK, I see the orphan request got approved. Certainly, wasn't looking to > draw outrage, but get advice on what the appropriate action. I will update > the relevant pythia, xrootd and submit deletion request myself for

Re: [aur-general] first package submission

On 04/03/2017 11:17 AM, David CARLIER via aur-general wrote: > I wished to submit this new package, the only thing is the main source file > needs to be taken from the url (e.g needs a registration) but that s all so > I dunno if I can apply for submitting this to aur ? The usual way to deal with

Re: [aur-general] VCS package guidelines

On 03/08/2017 04:06 PM, Ralf Mardorf wrote: > On Wed, 8 Mar 2017 18:00:52 -0300, Rafael Fontenelle wrote: >> 2017-03-08 17:53 GMT-03:00 Ralf Mardorf : >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> my understanding is, that if possible, it should look like this >>> >>> 1.2.r3.gabcdef7 >>> >>> and

Re: [aur-general] VCS package guidelines

On 03/08/2017 07:37 PM, Ivy Foster wrote: > Of course, you also can't be forced to install a packaging whose > versioning or build options you dislike. PKGBUILDs are trivial to edit > to taste. > > I recognize that the AUR ML is a slightly heretical place to suggest > this, but...the AUR is not

Re: [aur-general] Review request, jedit-pkgbuild-edit-mode

On 07/13/2017 06:54 PM, Vitaliy Berdinskikh via aur-general wrote: > Hi all, > > this package adds to jedit new edit mode for PKGBUILD file. It needs to > highlight syntax. > > PKGBUILD > ++ > # Maintainer: Vitaliy Berdinskikh > pkgname=jedit-pkgbuild-edit-mode > pkgver=1 > pkgrel=1 >

Re: [aur-general] Help with PKGBUILD for python-txtorcon

On 06/29/2017 11:13 AM, Storm Dragon via aur-general wrote: > Howdy, > My package requires a new dependancy called python-txtorcon. I wanted to > provide both python2 and python3 versions of this package, so I made the > PKGBUILD using the package python-twisted as a guide. I think I have done

Re: [aur-general] gopro package check

On 06/28/2017 05:08 PM, mickael foucaux via aur-general wrote: > Hi ! > > I just realized my first PKGBUILD for gopro tool which is available here > for now: https://github.com/mickro/gopro-tools-arch-package > > Gopro tools are made by https://github.com/KonradIT. That gives some useful >

Re: [aur-general] Suggestion to add a pinned comment to PKGBUILDs of high risk vulnerable software

On 07/02/2017 03:09 AM, Ralf Mardorf wrote: > Hi, > > I understand that users should decide on their own, if they wish to > install high risk vulnerable software, so I'm not writing because a > deletion request was rejected. > > I want to make a suggestion. > > A pinned comment could warn about

Re: [aur-general] gopro package check

On 07/02/2017 09:48 AM, mickael foucaux via aur-general wrote: > thanks. > > The package author and I made some updates after you comments. > > about checksums: > - I changed it for 'SKIP' rule > > about version number: > - version tag has been added to original repository > - and the PKGBUILD

Re: [aur-general] Gcc-6.3: ldd shows wrong symbols

On 06/27/2017 08:56 PM, Stefan Husmann wrote: > Hello, > > I have put gcc63 to AUR, merely to have a working gcj implemetation, Wait, isn't there already a gcc6 package in the AUR? > something is wrong with it. If I compile anything with it, ldd shows > that the resulting binaries have wrong

Re: [aur-general] Cabal-install-git package

On 05/13/2017 02:09 PM, Markus Ongyerth wrote: > Hello, > > I created a PKGBUILD for cabal-install (from git) and wanted to upload it to > the aur. [1] > > When I fetched the repository from the server, I got a PKGBUILD that already > exists, but isn't listed on the website. > > #archlinux on

  1   2   3   4   5   >