On Thu, 08 Jun 2023 14:46:01 +0300 Wael wrote: > I haven't checked with the Arch packager, but I don't think they'll be > replacing > it any time soon - as that version is still technically the "official" > flashrom. > Should I still try to ask anyhow?
sure, i would try - if you could convince arch to adopt it, we could drop this discussion altogether, and have one less package to maintain - i was nearly successful doing the same for 'cowsay' last month On Thu, 08 Jun 2023 14:46:01 +0300 Wael wrote: > From what I could gather 1.1 is the "stable", I suppose some of the > "instability > "/quick pace is because of improvements that were stuck upstream and now are > possible because of less bureaucracy. > > I just tested twice, with the two patches I sent applied it does compile fine > time after time, the tarball is version-specific and stable so long you're > pulling the same file. by "stable" i meant "deterministic" - i was not able to download the same file twice, using the same URL i will check again - maybe my brain was broken - which URL are you using? - can you send your revised PKGBUILD _______________________________________________ Dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.parabola.nu/mailman/listinfo/dev
