On Thursday 05 December 2013 22:04:53 Anatol Pomozov wrote:
I own several packages with the same functionality.
packages
https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/gem2arch/
https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/gem2arch-git/
should be removed as their upstream project is dead. In fact its
On Friday 06 December 2013 00:58:11 Doug Newgard wrote:
**DELETE**
Dead, source gone:
https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/triplexinvaders/
(with that name, I don't want to hunt too hard for alternative on this one
:D) https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/hunnyb/
=== Signoff report for [community-testing] ===
https://www.archlinux.org/packages/signoffs/
There are currently:
* 4 new packages in last 24 hours
* 0 known bad packages
* 0 packages not accepting signoffs
* 2 fully signed off packages
* 100 packages missing signoffs
* 0 packages older than 14
Hi,
Bartłomiej Piotrowski proposed packaging standard changes:
if there are 2 versions of some package foobar, then older version (1.0
for example) must be named as foobar1-1.0 and newer version (2.0 for
example) must be named as foobar-2.0.
I did not see such rule yet on
On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 10:25 AM, Sergej Pupykin m...@sergej.pp.ru wrote:
Hi,
Bartłomiej Piotrowski proposed packaging standard changes:
if there are 2 versions of some package foobar, then older version
(1.0
for example) must be named as foobar1-1.0 and newer version (2.0 for
example) must
At Fri, 06 Dec 2013 09:42:11 +0001,
Maxime Gauduin aluc...@gmail.com wrote:
I would change that rule a bit, because wxgtk is a special case. The
2.9 branch is a devel branch, keeping wxgtk for the stable branch and
adding a suffix for the devel branch makes sense. Speaking of wxgtk,
On 06.12.2013 10:45, Sergej Pupykin wrote:
At Fri, 06 Dec 2013 09:42:11 +0001,
Maxime Gauduin aluc...@gmail.com wrote:
I would change that rule a bit, because wxgtk is a special case. The
2.9 branch is a devel branch, keeping wxgtk for the stable branch and
adding a suffix for the devel
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 9:59 AM, Sven-Hendrik Haase s...@lutzhaase.com wrote:
On 06.12.2013 10:45, Sergej Pupykin wrote:
At Fri, 06 Dec 2013 09:42:11 +0001,
Maxime Gauduin aluc...@gmail.com wrote:
I would change that rule a bit, because wxgtk is
At Fri, 6 Dec 2013 10:22:35 +,
Jerome Leclanche adys...@gmail.com wrote:
Sensitive topic: Why doesn't arch support multiple versions for the
same packages?
Another sensitive topic is removing packages without notification
refering to nonexistent rule.
WTF? :S
On 06.12.2013 11:31, Sergej Pupykin wrote:
At Fri, 6 Dec 2013 10:22:35 +,
Jerome Leclanche adys...@gmail.com wrote:
Sensitive topic: Why doesn't arch support multiple versions for the
same packages?
Another sensitive topic is removing packages without notification
refering to nonexistent
On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 10:25 AM, Sergej Pupykin m...@sergej.pp.ru wrote:
Hi,
Bartłomiej Piotrowski proposed packaging standard changes:
if there are 2 versions of some package foobar, then older version (1.0
for example) must be named as foobar1-1.0 and newer version (2.0 for
example) must
Hi,
Thanks.
I repacked and cleaned gem2arch. Could you please merge
https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/gem2arch-ruby/
into
https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/gem2arch/
On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 12:34 AM, Evgeniy Alekseev darkarca...@mail.ru wrote:
On Thursday 05 December 2013 22:04:53 Anatol
On Friday 06 December 2013 06:04:37 Anatol Pomozov wrote:
I repacked and cleaned gem2arch. Could you please merge
https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/gem2arch-ruby/
into
https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/gem2arch/
Done too.
--
С уважением, Е.Алексеев.
Sincerely yours, E.Alekseev.
On 6 December 2013 17:25, Sergej Pupykin m...@sergej.pp.ru wrote:
Bartłomiej Piotrowski proposed packaging standard changes:
Where is this proposal? I think he simply meant that it is the current practice.
if there are 2 versions of some package foobar, then older version (1.0
for example)
14 matches
Mail list logo
