Re: [aur-general] TU Application: Baptiste Jonglez

On Mon, 28 Nov 2016 at 07:33:16, Baptiste Jonglez wrote: > I would like to apply to become a TU. Lukas Fleischer has kindly accepted > to sponsor my application. I confirm that I sponsor Baptiste. I have worked with him several times in the past; among other things he contributed several

[aur-general] gitpkg Helper

On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 5:26 PM Levente Polyak wrote: > In fact we already had several discussions in the IRC about this topic > and what I mentioned above was always sufficient to justify getting rid > of it. The only reason we don't yet have a TODO list to switch away

Re: [aur-general] TU Application: Baptiste Jonglez

On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 01:04:47AM +0100, Levente Polyak wrote: > On 11/29/2016 12:29 AM, Baptiste Jonglez wrote: > >> - you should use git+https:// instead of plain git:// even through the > >> CA world is a bit wonky it still authenticates the server and at the > >> very bare minimum adds

[aur-general] Signoff report for [community-testing]

=== Signoff report for [community-testing] === https://www.archlinux.org/packages/signoffs/ There are currently: * 76 new packages in last 24 hours * 0 known bad packages * 0 packages not accepting signoffs * 1 fully signed off package * 99 packages missing signoffs * 4 packages older than 14

Re: [aur-general] TU Application: Baptiste Jonglez

On 11/29/2016 11:33 AM, Baptiste Jonglez wrote: > For a package in [community], an expired certificate for the upstream > tarball is not a big deal, since it does not directly affect the Arch user > installing the package. As a packager, you can just get the tarball by > some other means, or wait

Re: [aur-general] [REVIEW REQUEST] python-viivakoodi

On 11/29/2016 08:19 PM, Quentin Bourgeois wrote: > Ouch, one new try :p Looks good to me. I'd say it is ready to upload to the AUR. > Definitely, but its quiet fun to be faced with such problems. It's also quite fun even when you're loud. ;) > If you may I propose the following summary in

Re: [aur-general] [REVIEW REQUEST] python-viivakoodi

On 16-11-28 23:02:02, Eli Schwartz via aur-general wrote: > On 11/28/2016 07:47 PM, Quentin Bourgeois wrote: > > On 16-11-27 19:41:06, Eli Schwartz via aur-general wrote: > >> On 11/27/2016 06:10 PM, Quentin Bourgeois wrote: > >>> With this, I come with a simpler PKGBUILD[0] in which I push > >>>

Re: [aur-general] TU Application: Baptiste Jonglez

Well, I actually withdraw this sentence, the discussion period is pretty much about discussing :P technically the discussion period has not even begun, since there was no confirmation of sponsorship yet. g

Re: [aur-general] TU Application: Baptiste Jonglez

On November 29, 2016 12:08:39 PM GMT+01:00, Levente Polyak wrote: >Fine, if you were already aware of the outcome, why this useless waste >of time to discuss it yet again. Well, I actually withdraw this sentence, the discussion period is pretty much about discussing :P

Re: [aur-general] TU Application: Baptiste Jonglez

On 11/28/2016 06:29 PM, Baptiste Jonglez wrote: > On the other hand, if one day the TLS certificate becomes invalid (expired > certificate, untrusted CA, etc), the package would fail to build. I see > this as a significant drawback of using git+https://. When you say drawback, are you referring

Re: [aur-general] [REVIEW REQUEST] python-viivakoodi

On 11/28/2016 07:47 PM, Quentin Bourgeois wrote: > On 16-11-27 19:41:06, Eli Schwartz via aur-general wrote: >> On 11/27/2016 06:10 PM, Quentin Bourgeois wrote: >>> With this, I come with a simpler PKGBUILD[0] in which I push >>> modifications you advised. I also removed some dependencies that are

Re: [aur-general] TU Application: Baptiste Jonglez

On Tue, 29 Nov 2016 12:08:39 +0100 Levente Polyak wrote: > On 11/29/2016 11:33 AM, Baptiste Jonglez wrote: > > For a package in [community], an expired certificate for the upstream > > tarball is not a big deal, since it does not directly affect the Arch user > >