April 2009 - Aur-general - lists.archlinux.org

[aur-general] Deletion request - at76_usb
by Jared Casper 03 May '09

03 May '09

I just noticed the at76_usb module is in the new staging tree of the mainline kernel, so the AUR package can be removed. at76_usb-firmware is still needed. Thanks, Jared Casper

2 3

[aur-general] menu-cache are now in [extra], delete from [community]
by Gerardo Exequiel Pozzi 30 Apr '09

30 Apr '09

http://www.archlinux.org/packages/extra/i686/menu-cache/ http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=22713 (outdated) -- Gerardo Exequiel Pozzi ( djgera ) http://www.djgera.com.ar KeyID: 0x1B8C330D Key fingerprint = 0CAA D5D4 CD85 4434 A219 76ED 39AB 221B 1B8C 330D

2 1

[aur-general] KStars Removal Request
by Ronnie Collinson 28 Apr '09

28 Apr '09

Hi, I recently took over maintenance of Kstars, but discovered after that it is no longer distributed by itself, instead its part of the kdeedu collection, furthermore it can be installed by itself from kdemod. IMHO I believe this package is now unnecessary. Link <http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=9857> Thankyou Ronnie

2 1

[aur-general] CDCollect orphan request
by Ronnie Collinson 28 Apr '09

28 Apr '09

This package, has since May 2007 not been usable due to the pkgbuild being named lowercase. I would like to take over maintaince of the package please. Link<http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=10329&O=&L=&C=&K=&SB=&SO=&PP=&do_O…>

2 2

[aur-general] x2go server
by Richard Murri 28 Apr '09

28 Apr '09

Andrea Scarpino orphaned all of the x2go packages for me yesterday, but it seems he missed x2goserver. Could somebody orphan that for me so that I can update it too? Thanks, Richard

2 2

Re: [aur-general] [arch-dev-public] python-2.6.2 and files in /usr/lib/python2.5
by Allan McRae 28 Apr '09

28 Apr '09

Aaron Griffin wrote: > On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 10:23 PM, Allan McRae <allan(a)archlinux.org> wrote: > >> Allan McRae wrote: >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> I have just put python-2.6.2-1 into [testing]. This remove the python-2.5 >>> compatibility sitepath so anything not rebuilt since python-2.6 was release >>> will be broken. The list of broken packages as of yesterday is in FS#13831 >>> (http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/13831?getfile=3375). >>> Note that these don't need built against the python in [testing] to be >>> fix, just rebuilt against an python-2.6 package. >>> >> Giving this a big bump... Many packages still are not rebuilt and I want to >> move python from [testing] soon. >> > > Do you have an updated list? > > Here is the updated list: [extra] mythtv-0.21-1 python-pyspi-0.6.1-2 tunepimp-0.5.3-5 [community] bzrtools-0.91.0-1 campgen-0.27-1 computertemp-0.9.6.1-3 everygui-0.99.b-2 gimmie-0.2.8-5 glom-1.4.4-1 gnuconcept-0.3.5-1 gogh-0.1.2.1-3 gpsd-2.37-2 hsoconnect-1.1.83-2 kungfu-0.2.3-4 libnewt-0.52.8-1 metakit-2.4.9.7-1 mezogis-0.1.5-1 pessulus-2.16.2-2 pychecker-0.8.18-1 pympc-20050330-3 python-chardet-1.0.1-1 python-constraint-1.1-2 python-genshi-0.5.1-1 python-geotypes-0.7.0-1 python-mpdclient2-0.11.1-3 python-pyparallel-0.1-2 python-pyx-0.10-2 python-vorbissimple-0.0.2-1 qtorrent-0.9.5-3 scribes-0.3.3.3-1 serpentine-0.9-2 striim-0.0.4-2 tango-generator-3.2.3-1 thuban-svn-2778-1 urlgrabber-3.1.0-1 I have also attached this to the relevant bug report in the tracker. Allan

1 0

Re: [aur-general] [arch-general] Question about the license of opera
by Gerardo Exequiel Pozzi 27 Apr '09

27 Apr '09

Aaron Griffin wrote: > On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 1:02 AM, Allan McRae <allan(a)archlinux.org> wrote: > >> Attila wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> i recognized that there is new package in aur for opera with this >>> informations: >>> >>> "This package is the official one from the [extra] repository. We have to >>> move >>> it because of a unclear license issue. After we have clarify this issue >>> the >>> package will be back in the repos or not. It should not be moved to >>> community, because of the license." >>> >>> I'm a little bit surprised that a custom license is such a problem because >>> this shows me 343 entries: >>> >>> find /var/abs -name PKGBUILD | \ >>> xargs grep license | \ >>> grep custom | grep extra | wc -l >>> >>> Will now all packages with custom licenses disappear from extra? >>> >>> >> No. Only the ones where it is unclear if we can legally distribute it. >> > > To clarify a little more, a "custom" license is not a specific type of > license. It just means the package ships a license that is > non-standard and doesn't have a name. The license that is shipped with > Opera has some odd language, making us unable to ship it at this > current time. > > Then also this opera package should be moved from community to AUR http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=9028 ? -- Gerardo Exequiel Pozzi ( djgera ) http://www.djgera.com.ar KeyID: 0x1B8C330D Key fingerprint = 0CAA D5D4 CD85 4434 A219 76ED 39AB 221B 1B8C 330D

1 0

[aur-general] PKGBUILDS removal request and question
by Borislav Gerassimov 27 Apr '09

27 Apr '09

Greetings! I've recently (friday) adopted the qutim-related orphans, well almost all of the qutim PKGBUILDS. There are some of theme that are in fact duplicates, created because the originals were not updated. I've updated the duplicates, so I can suggest the following to be removed: http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=24518 qutim-protocol-icq-svn http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=24519 qutim-protocol-irc-svn http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=24520 qutim-protocol-jabber-svn http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=24521 qutim-protocol-mrim-svn I've added provides=(..) and replaces=(..) lines in the corresponding qutim- plugin-*-svn PKGBUILDS. Is this enough? Also I've decided to update the qutim-svn PKGBUILD and remove the others, which are: http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=22515 qutim-core-svn http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=21918 qutim-svn-dev There are conflicts=(..) and provides=(..) lines in the qutim-svn PKGBUILD but I'm not sure if replaces=(..) is needed there. The goal is to have qutim-svn and qutim-plugin-*-svn PKGBUILDs only. Thanks at advance for your replies and actions. If something is wrong with all this, please share your opinions. -- Borislav Gerassimov | borislavba - at - gmail.com Don't print if not necessary!

3 5

[aur-general] When does a package need -svn?
by hollunder＠gmx.at 27 Apr '09

27 Apr '09

Hi there, the developer of ardour changed the download page (1) in a way that doesn't allow downloads without going through a dialogue where he asks for donation. Donation is not mandatory but there's no direct link to the source tarball available anymore. All ardour packages, including the one I maintain (2), are broken since this change. The in my opinion best way to overcome this issue is to determine the svn revision of the release, check it out and build that instead. Although it technically using svn it wouldn't follow a branch. Would it ok to just leave the package name as is? The other method I can think of that wouldn't need svn would be to upload the tarball elsewhere, something I rather not do. (1) http://www.ardour.org/download (2) http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=22752 Best regards, Philipp

8 19

[aur-general] Deletion request for 'changefirefoxicon'
by Sven-Hendrik Haase 26 Apr '09

26 Apr '09

I request the AUR package 'changefirefoxicon' be deleted for duplicate (of 'firefox-branded') and severe breach of all good PKGBUILD rules. Just look at it, but I warn you as you might fall right from your chair either laughing or crying. Please just delete it.

6 7