[arch-dev-public] Out-of-date orphans in extra
Hi, I have made a list of orphaned packages that are flagged out of date (http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/User:Allan/Out-of-date_Orphans). There are a few packages that are needed as dependencies for packages with maintainers: bittorrent - archboot (Tobias P) devil - cegui (Douglas) libgda - qof (Douglas), - abiwork-plugins (via libgnomdb; Giovanni) - autopano-sift (via libgnomedb → gtk-sharp; Tobias K) liblo - ardour (Tobias K) taglib - many packages (Tobias P, Giovanni, Tobias K, Andreas, Jan, Jurgen, Ronald, Kevin) There is also a bunch of bluez related packages that Geoffrey should be taking over. Four packages have less that 1% usage but were kept in the last clean-up due to being i18n related. Should we be dropping these to the AUR if no-one is maintaining them? We are not helping international users much if these are not maintained. Does any dev use autofs? It has three of the oldest bugs in the bug tracker and is way out of date... Allan
Hi, in the last time this topic appears again and again. A few weeks/months ago I have changed the opera package from the shared build Qt3 version to the static build Qt4 version for i686. I have done this because some users wanted it. Opera doesn't provide a shared build Qt4 version at all and there is also no x86_64 Qt4 version, just Qt3 (shared and static) version. Now I want your opinion about this topic. Should we stay at the Qt4 static build for i686 or should we changed back to the Qt3 shared build? Personally I don't care if it's a shared or static version. If we stay with the i686 static Qt4 version, then the following bug entry is right and I have to remove the Qt dependency for the i686 version because of the static build. Here is the bug entry at flyspray: http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/12588 Thanks, Daniel -- Psssst! Schon vom neuen GMX MultiMessenger gehört? Der kann`s mit allen: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/multimessenger
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 2:55 AM, Daniel Isenmann <daniel.isenmann@gmx.de> wrote:
Hi,
in the last time this topic appears again and again. A few weeks/months ago I have changed the opera package from the shared build Qt3 version to the static build Qt4 version for i686. I have done this because some users wanted it. Opera doesn't provide a shared build Qt4 version at all and there is also no x86_64 Qt4 version, just Qt3 (shared and static) version.
Now I want your opinion about this topic. Should we stay at the Qt4 static build for i686 or should we changed back to the Qt3 shared build? Personally I don't care if it's a shared or static version. If we stay with the i686 static Qt4 version, then the following bug entry is right and I have to remove the Qt dependency for the i686 version because of the static build.
Here is the bug entry at flyspray: http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/12588
There's something to be said for keeping the builds the same on both architectures, but this is Opera's goof, not ours, really. What's the size difference between shared and static builds?
On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 11:05:43 -0600 "Aaron Griffin" <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 2:55 AM, Daniel Isenmann <daniel.isenmann@gmx.de> wrote:
Hi,
in the last time this topic appears again and again. A few weeks/months ago I have changed the opera package from the shared build Qt3 version to the static build Qt4 version for i686. I have done this because some users wanted it. Opera doesn't provide a shared build Qt4 version at all and there is also no x86_64 Qt4 version, just Qt3 (shared and static) version.
Now I want your opinion about this topic. Should we stay at the Qt4 static build for i686 or should we changed back to the Qt3 shared build? Personally I don't care if it's a shared or static version. If we stay with the i686 static Qt4 version, then the following bug entry is right and I have to remove the Qt dependency for the i686 version because of the static build.
Here is the bug entry at flyspray: http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/12588
There's something to be said for keeping the builds the same on both architectures, but this is Opera's goof, not ours, really.
What's the size difference between shared and static builds?
The size differs only in 2MB in tar.bz2. That's not really much at all.
participants (3)
-
Aaron Griffin
-
Allan McRae
-
Daniel Isenmann