Re: [aur-general] TU Resignation
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 3:17 PM, Ionuț Bîru ib...@archlinux.org wrote: Hi, i don't have too much time left for myself and i want to cut down some duties in arch. See you guys in devland :) http://www.archlinux.org/packages/?sort=repo=Communityq=maintainer=ibirulast_update=flagged=limit=50 From all packages that i maintain in community i only want to keep virtualbox. All the others are up for adoption. -- Ionuț Thank you for your contributions up to this point! :-D As for package adoption, I can take shotwell, balsa, and blueman off your hands if you would like. -Brad
Re: [aur-general] disown request package ninja-ide
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 7:04 PM, helq alluqa linuxero...@gmail.com wrote: please disown the next package ninja-ide http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=46017 the user dont respond any request, by message in aur page and email, for at least a few weeks and, the package is outdated for a weeks Disowned
Re: [aur-general] disown request package ninja-ide
2011/3/15 Thomas Dziedzic gos...@gmail.com On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 7:04 PM, helq alluqa linuxero...@gmail.com wrote: please disown the next package ninja-ide http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=46017 the user dont respond any request, by message in aur page and email, for at least a few weeks and, the package is outdated for a weeks Disowned Thanks :D
[aur-general] How should *-devel packages generally be handled?
Package foo exists in [extra], and foo-devel in the AUR. foo-devel is obviously based off unstable tarball releases (otherwise it would be foo-git, foo-svn, foo-hg or similar). So let's say foo is at version 4.0 (stable), should foo-devel stay at 3.9 (the last beta/rc/unstable release) or update to 4.0? Just a general question. My gnucash-devel package is currently pretty much identical to the one in [extra], and it does seem a bit unnecessary because the project itself does not currently have unstable releases.
Re: [aur-general] How should *-devel packages generally be handled?
2011/3/16 Ng Oon-Ee ngoo...@gmail.com: Package foo exists in [extra], and foo-devel in the AUR. foo-devel is obviously based off unstable tarball releases (otherwise it would be foo-git, foo-svn, foo-hg or similar). So let's say foo is at version 4.0 (stable), should foo-devel stay at 3.9 (the last beta/rc/unstable release) or update to 4.0? Just a general question. My gnucash-devel package is currently pretty much identical to the one in [extra], and it does seem a bit unnecessary because the project itself does not currently have unstable releases. I don't think we need a policy here. Let the maintainer decide. If they want to spend time keeping -devel up to date with the stable releases, it's their decision. The users can switch to another package if they want. So anything is fine. Even removing it.
