=== Signoff report for [testing] ===
https://www.archlinux.org/packages/signoffs/
There are currently:
* 12 new packages in last 24 hours
* 0 known bad packages
* 0 packages not accepting signoffs
* 5 fully signed off packages
* 48 packages missing signoffs
* 0 packages older than 14 days
(Note:
= Integrity Check i686 of core,extra,community =
Performing integrity checks...
== parsing pkgbuilds
== parsing db files
== checking mismatches
== checking archs
== checking dependencies
== checking
Warning : the repository multilib does not exist in /srv/abs/rsync/any
===
= Integrity Check x86_64 of core,extra,community,multilib =
===
Performing integrity checks...
== parsing
[2013-10-26 12:29:42 -0400] Dave Reisner:
The next release of procps-ng will contain pidof and clash with
sysvinit-tools.
It's now in [testing].
I'm open to arguments against this, but I suggest we drop sysvinit-tools
after pidof is part of a release from procps-ng.
Let's do that once
Hi,
This is the current situation:
* Several packages in [community] (and maybe one package in [extra])
includes .desktop files
* There is a 2 years, 8 months and 14 days old bug report, opened by
Thomas Dziedzic, that opens with a few well chosen words, and is
followed by a lengthy discussion:
[2013-12-06 18:15:36 +0100] Alexander Rødseth:
I think .desktop files should ideally be provided by upstream. But for
cases where they are not currently being provided, we should provide
them.
Sure. That's exactly like service files, or rc.d files before that.
Nothing new here.
Regardless of
On 06.12.2013 18:56, Gaetan Bisson wrote:
P.S. Why did you separately send this to arch-general? Now the
discussion will be split over two mailing lists...
I mentioned on IRC that not everyone reads arch-general when I saw the
mail there and encouraged him to post to arch-dev-public, I didn't
On 7 December 2013 01:15, Alexander Rødseth rods...@gmail.com wrote:
If there are no protests, I will, after some time (say, three days
I don't think that's enough time to get the representative opinion.
Anyway, on topic, I know I have at least a couple of packages where I
provide the desktop
Hi,
2013/12/6 Gaetan Bisson bis...@archlinux.org:
Regardless of if it is correct that upstream should provide the
.desktop files or not, the current plan is not working. TUs and devs
are slow at reporting this as bugs and upstream are slow at
responding. At the current rate, this will take
Hi,
2013/12/6 Rashif Ray Rahman sc...@archlinux.org:
On 7 December 2013 01:15, Alexander Rødseth rods...@gmail.com wrote:
If there are no protests, I will, after some time (say, three days
I don't think that's enough time to get the representative opinion.
You cut away the important part of
Well,
You missed most of my points. That's okay. Let's focus on:
[2013-12-06 21:08:30 +0100] Alexander Rødseth:
2013/12/6 Gaetan Bisson bis...@archlinux.org:
Packages for whom nobody has yet bothered to write a desktop file just
have no need for one...
I disagree with this too. I think
[2013-12-06 21:33:26 +0100] Alexander Rødseth:
I disagree, I think all .desktop files should be removed from our
repositories, with the only exception being if a package maintainer
wishes to keep his packages like they are right now.
It's quite patronizing for you to assume that the silent
12 matches
Mail list logo
