March 2008 - Aur-general - lists.archlinux.org

[aur-general] Missing Packages
by aur-notify＠archlinux.org 20 Mar '08

20 Mar '08

Missing x86_64 Packages: No new package supplied for gambas2 2.4.0-2! -- This is an automated message. If you wish to stop receiving it twice a day, fix the package(s).

3 5

[aur-general] perl 5.10.0 coming soon
by Firmicus 19 Mar '08

19 Mar '08

Hello all, this message is primarily adressed at the few TUs who maintain perl packages in community (namely Sergej, Allan and bardo), but should also be read by everyone else contributing perl packages to AUR as well. perl 5.10.0 – currently in testing – will soon be moved to core. Since this release implements a new "Perl Policy", there are some important changes in packaging that should be noted. Also, all packages that provide compiled libraries or that embed their own perl engine must be recompiled. Even better is to update ALL perl packages according to the new path scheme. See http://ankabut.net/archlinux/perlcommunity/PKGBUILD-perl.proto for the new and simpler way to package perl stuff. Since I had to do the job for my packages anyway, it was equally easy for me to update all PKGBUILDs at once. So Sergej, Allan and bardo can grab their new PKGBUILDs from http://ankabut.net/archlinux/perlcommunity/sergej.zip http://ankabut.net/archlinux/perlcommunity/allan.zip http://ankabut.net/archlinux/perlcommunity/bardo.zip Note that these contain only the packages in lib. There are a few more that I have not touched: devel/svk devel/perl6-pugs games/hearse multimedia/freewrl multimedia/xmltv network/pppusage These are left as an exercise to their respective maintainers ;) Be sure to backup your old PKGBUILDs and to check carefully those I made (especially the depends array). Kevin – the perl maintainer – is going to notify us when he moves perl from testing to core. Then we should get busy building the packages and uploading them to the repo :) Have fun, Firmicus

6 12

[aur-general] architecture independent packages
by Abhishek Dasgupta 19 Mar '08

19 Mar '08

For an architecture independent package, is it sufficient to build the package once, rename it appropriately and upload? Or should it be built on both 32 and 64 bit? -- Abhishek.

3 7

[aur-general] (no subject)
by stefan-husmann＠t-online.de 18 Mar '08

18 Mar '08

Hello, can someone please orphan the package fotox. The maintainer does not update his package (it is the only one he has in AUR) and did not respond to my e-mail. I would like to maintain the package. Thanks! Stefan

2 2

[aur-general] Error occurred when submitting package
by 朱沁 18 Mar '08

18 Mar '08

Hi, I was trying to submit a package called x264-git which does not exist on the list. But it said I was overwriting this package: "You are not allowed to overwrite the *x264-git* package." Could someone take a look at this? Many thanks. Qin Zhu

3 5

[aur-general] List of comminity64 failures?
by Allan McRae 18 Mar '08

18 Mar '08

Is there a list of packages that can not be put in community64 due to build failures/binary package etc? I had a look through the wiki and found http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch64_ToDoS which has no community info. Looking at the pkg diff page (http://dev.archlinux.org/~andyrtr/pkg_diff.html) there are ~60 packages in i686 community but not in x86_64 community. There is only 1 in x86_64 but not in i686 which is not a lib32 package. I'm going to spend some time shortening this list but I'm sure some of these are legitimately only i686. As an aside, something is wrong with the matching in the pkg_diff page. Some packages appear twice in the list, once with a missing i686 version and once with a missing x86_64 version. I think this is when the is a major version difference between the platforms. e.g. gambas2 & yaz. Cheers, Allan

4 6

[aur-general] Flagging out-of-date in AUR
by stefan-husmann＠t-online.de 17 Mar '08

17 Mar '08

Hello, some weeks ago Firmicus complained on this list that some of his packages are flagged out of date in AUR. Now I see one of gummibaerchens packages netbeans 6.01 flagged out of date. It is definitely not out of date, as he put it in AUR today. I suspect myself to be the one who is responsible for the issues Firmicus described. But if so, I did so accidentely, because I sometimes saw newly uploaded packages flagged out of date and unflagged them because they were not. Perhaps there is a caching problem? I use kazehakase 0.53 for browsing. Sorry for any inconvenience if I actually am the "evil". Stefan

2 1

[aur-general] acroread-fr
by JaDa 17 Mar '08

17 Mar '08

:: Synchronizing package databases... core is up to date extra is up to date community 348.1K 326.2K/s 00:00:01 [#####################] 100% archlinuxfr 17.0K 30.7K/s 00:00:01 [#####################] 100% :: Starting full system upgrade... :: Replace acroread with archlinuxfr/acroread-fr? [Y/n] n after the latest updates I got this now. I think this depend on Mesa 7.0.3rc2-1 ! I don't use a fr sytem I am using en/US. JaDa -- Make it idiot proof and someone will make a better idiot.

4 4

Re: [aur-general] compiz-fusion?
by Timm Preetz 15 Mar '08

15 Mar '08

On Sat, 2008-03-15 at 22:10 +1000, Allan McRae wrote: > For groups of packages like compiz-fusion, > where many packages need updated at once, perhaps it would be better to > just ask for a builder on the mailing list. Yes, I think if every package has a maintainer and the builders defined things go much faster than waiting and checking the pkg_diff everytime. Also people better know _what_ they 'have to do' instead of sitting in front of pkg_diff and waiting for a package they can actually build. For example Bjørn and me share packages, as he has 32bit and I have 64bit. This way we just give each other a ping whenever we upload a new package, and in general the other built is uploaded just a few minutes later :) IMHO the way it should be.

1 0

[aur-general] compiz-fusion?
by Thomas Bächler 15 Mar '08

15 Mar '08

I saw that compiz and compiz-fusion have been updated for i686. However, for x86_64 only compiz has been updated, not fusion. That makes compiz incompatible to the fusion packages and essentially breaks it. Could whoever built the compiz packages on x86_64 please also build the fusion packages? Or anyone else?

3 3