Re: [arch-dev-public] Long out of date packages

On Thu, 20 Oct 2016 14:25:02 +0200 Florian Pritz via arch-dev-public wrote: ... > ttoepper: > community/x86_64/confuse Disowned the package. pgpGqPWvbUH05.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [arch-dev-public] Long out of date packages

Christian Hesse on Thu, 2016/10/20 14:42: > Florian Pritz via arch-dev-public on Thu, > 2016/10/20 14:25: > > f2fs-tools > > Looks like f2fs-tools has a hard dependency on libselinux now... So we have > to move libselinux from AUR to [extra] if we

Re: [arch-dev-public] Long out of date packages

On 10/20/2016 08:25 PM, Florian Pritz via arch-dev-public wrote: > fyan: > community/any/soundfont-fluid > multilib/x86_64/lib32-libxml2 > community/x86_64/reaver > community/any/scrapy > extra/x86_64/xapian-core > multilib/x86_64/lib32-nss > community/x86_64/wiznote > community/x86_64/git-annex >

Re: [arch-dev-public] Long out of date packages

> > > ## Still required > gdata-sharp > gudev-sharp > > Will be removed from the repo soon, because I decided to remove banshee from the repo (reason here: https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/2016-October/028361.html ) As I stated in the other mail, I won't move it to the AUR.

Re: [arch-dev-public] Long out of date packages

2016-10-20 14:25 GMT+02:00 Florian Pritz via arch-dev-public < arch-dev-public@archlinux.org>: > On 28.09.2016 15:37, Florian Pritz via arch-dev-public wrote: > > > daniel: > extra/any/monodevelop > > > > I'm on it. There is some compiing issues right now, that's the reason for outdated. So don't

Re: [arch-dev-public] Long out of date packages

On 20.10.2016 17:31, Levente Polyak wrote: > On 10/20/2016 02:25 PM, Florian Pritz via arch-dev-public wrote: >> I'll start slowly dropping packages to AUR in a few weeks. > > Well I'm not 100% sure but do you mean the already orphan packages or > all not required packages? I mean all

Re: [arch-dev-public] Long out of date packages

On 2016-10-20 14:25, Florian Pritz via arch-dev-public wrote: > bpiotrowski: > core/x86_64/ncurses > core/x86_64/bash > core/x86_64/readline This trio requires some love that's currently reserved for fixing Boost in staging (if I ever get more free time to debug it). Bartłomiej signature.asc

Re: [arch-dev-public] Long out of date packages

On 10/20/2016 02:25 PM, Florian Pritz via arch-dev-public wrote: > > I'll start slowly dropping packages to AUR in a few weeks. > Well I'm not 100% sure but do you mean the already orphan packages or all not required packages? Most likely there is lot of stuff they will be dropper later on...

Re: [arch-dev-public] Long out of date packages

October 20 2016 3:49 PM, "Guillaume Alaux" wrote: > On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 3:46 PM, Sven-Hendrik Haase > wrote: > >> openvdb is updated as part of the boost rebuild. >> >> On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 3:03 PM, Allan McRae wrote: >>>

Re: [arch-dev-public] Long out of date packages

On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 3:46 PM, Sven-Hendrik Haase wrote: > openvdb is updated as part of the boost rebuild. > > On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 3:03 PM, Allan McRae wrote: >> On 20/10/16 22:25, Florian Pritz via arch-dev-public wrote: >>> >>> allan: >>>

Re: [arch-dev-public] Long out of date packages

openvdb is updated as part of the boost rebuild. On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 3:03 PM, Allan McRae wrote: > On 20/10/16 22:25, Florian Pritz via arch-dev-public wrote: >> >> allan: >> extra/x86_64/fakechroot > > Updating this breaks the pacman testsuite (due to a fakechroot

Re: [arch-dev-public] Long out of date packages

jgc: extra/x86_64/libxml++-docs extra/x86_64/libxml++ extra/any/ttf-dejavu extra/x86_64/libproxy extra/x86_64/gnumeric Please don't kill these. They still get active maintenance but I haven't gotten into these yet. libxml++ is not out of date, the "new version" is a new ABI/API which is

Re: [arch-dev-public] Long out of date packages

On 20/10/16 22:25, Florian Pritz via arch-dev-public wrote: > > allan: > extra/x86_64/fakechroot Updating this breaks the pacman testsuite (due to a fakechroot bug...).

Re: [arch-dev-public] Long out of date packages

Florian Pritz via arch-dev-public on Thu, 2016/10/20 14:25: > f2fs-tools Looks like f2fs-tools has a hard dependency on libselinux now... So we have to move libselinux from AUR to [extra] if we want to keep f2fs support. Tobias, are you going to handle this? Do

Re: [arch-dev-public] Long out of date packages

On 28.09.2016 15:37, Florian Pritz via arch-dev-public wrote: > I will look through the list in 2 weeks and start orphaning packages > that do not have a reason for the holdup in the out of date message. So it turns out archweb doesn't allow me to easily orphan packages the way the AUR does so

Re: [arch-dev-public] Long out of date packages

El Thu, 20 Oct 2016 04:24:10 +0600, Ray Rashif via arch-dev-public escribió: > - liblo: this was flagged by me as a reminder based on a user's e-mail > [1] > - ardour: awaiting testing - libffado: compilation issues, didn't dig > [2] > . > [2] Help appreciated in identifying the patch or at least

Re: [arch-dev-public] Long out of date packages

On 7 August 2016 at 03:19, Ray Rashif wrote: > Hi all > > I am guilty of leaving some packages out-of-date and some tickets > sitting idle for a while now, and for being "intermittently inactive" > since like forever. > ... I have gotten around to my LOODs, but please

Re: [arch-dev-public] Long out of date packages

On 06.08.2016 10:18, Florian Pritz via arch-dev-public wrote: > [1] https://www.archlinux.org/devel/reports/long-out-of-date/ We still have tons of packages on that list. Please check if the list includes any of your packages and either update or orphan them. You can also check the out of date

Re: [arch-dev-public] Long out of date packages

On 2016-08-22 22:06, Sébastien Luttringer wrote: > I understood you both feel ignored on IRC and you decided to post here to > catch > my attention. We cleared that up. Mailing list is our primary way of > communication, that's fine. > > «This week I'm going to rebuild dependent packages to

Re: [arch-dev-public] Long out of date packages

On jeu., 2016-08-18 at 11:29 +0200, Florian Pritz via arch-dev-public wrote: > On 17.08.2016 23:30, Sébastien Luttringer wrote: > > > > > > > > Is that really not enough? > > Enough for what? If you really wanna help me, you just talk to me and offer > > your help, but you don't send a rocket on

Re: [arch-dev-public] Long out of date packages

On 17.08.2016 23:30, Sébastien Luttringer wrote: >> Is that really not enough? > Enough for what? If you really wanna help me, you just talk to me and offer > your help, but you don't send a rocket on the public list. I'm not sure why you bring this up again here since I was under the impression

Re: [arch-dev-public] Long out of date packages

On 18/08/16 05:52, Christian Hesse wrote: > Unflag the package, then flag it yourself with a comment of the details. At > least devs can find the information there. As a "bonus", unflagged then reflagging makes the package look as if it has only been out-of-date for 1 day...

Re: [arch-dev-public] Long out of date packages

On mer., 2016-08-17 at 21:35 +0200, Bartłomiej Piotrowski wrote: > On 2016-08-17 21:20, Sébastien Luttringer wrote: > >  > Even without my question on IRC, you at least got out-of-date > notification and Florian's message about rotten packages. I see Florian message (good initiative btw). It makes

Re: [arch-dev-public] Long out of date packages

On Wednesday, August 17, 2016 9:52:40 PM CEST you wrote: > > Since I'm running into this with opencascade myself: Where would that be? > > Should it be posted to this list? > > Unflag the package, then flag it yourself with a comment of the details. At > least devs can find the information there.

Re: [arch-dev-public] Long out of date packages

Florian Pritz via arch-dev-public on Wed, 2016/08/17 21:40: > On Wednesday, August 17, 2016 9:35:02 PM CEST Bartłomiej Piotrowski wrote: > > If there is a good > > reason not to upgrade a package, put that information somewhere, instead > > of letting it decay. >

Re: [arch-dev-public] Long out of date packages

On Wednesday, August 17, 2016 9:35:02 PM CEST Bartłomiej Piotrowski wrote: > If there is a good > reason not to upgrade a package, put that information somewhere, instead > of letting it decay. Since I'm running into this with opencascade myself: Where would that be? Should it be posted to this

Re: [arch-dev-public] Long out of date packages

On 2016-08-17 21:20, Sébastien Luttringer wrote: > I didn't get your message on #archlinux-devops. You really didn't > find any other way to talk to me? Even without my question on IRC, you at least got out-of-date notification and Florian's message about rotten packages. There is also a bug

Re: [arch-dev-public] Long out of date packages

On mer., 2016-08-17 at 20:52 +0200, Bartłomiej Piotrowski wrote: > On 2016-08-06 10:18, Florian Pritz via arch-dev-public wrote: > > > >  > While I'm no saint either, Ceph package is out of date since November > last year and received only minor upgrades despite newer releases > availability. 2

Re: [arch-dev-public] Long out of date packages

On 2016-08-06 10:18, Florian Pritz via arch-dev-public wrote: > Hi, > > We have quite a few packages that are marked out of date for more than a > month[1]. Some of them even for a year or two. You can also view a list > of your own packages via the link on the developer dashboard under the >

Re: [arch-dev-public] Long out of date packages

[2016-08-06 16:10:04 +0300] Jerome Leclanche: > > https://www.archlinux.org/packages/community/any/firefox-firebug/ > > We shouldn't really be packaging Firefox extensions... It really makes no difference whether it's a browser extension or an ordinary piece of software: we simply shouldn't keep

Re: [arch-dev-public] Long out of date packages

Hi all I am guilty of leaving some packages out-of-date and some tickets sitting idle for a while now, and for being "intermittently inactive" since like forever. It's all caused by an initial breakage of my Linux system due to a hardware issue a year ago and of course RL (so I have not yet

Re: [arch-dev-public] Long out of date packages

> https://www.archlinux.org/packages/community/any/firefox-firebug/ We shouldn't really be packaging Firefox extensions... J. Leclanche On Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 12:54 PM, Antonio Rojas wrote: > Florian Pritz via arch-dev-public wrote: >> Can everyone please either update

Re: [arch-dev-public] Long out of date packages

Florian Pritz via arch-dev-public wrote: > Can everyone please either update their packages or explain here why > each package is not being updated? If it's due to lack of interest, > please consider orphaning it and post the names of the packages here so > they can be adopted. > > If a package