February 2011 - Aur-general - lists.archlinux.org

[aur-general] Request removal: pngout-static-athlon, pngout-static-pentium4
by Lou 05 Feb '11

05 Feb '11

I just adopted and updated pngout-static, but there are some additional pngout-static packages available that are old, outdated, and orphaned. Nobody cares about these and nothing depends on them either. pngout-static-athlon http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=38727 pngout-static-pentium4 http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=38728

2 2

[aur-general] deletion request: dino-git
by masutu 05 Feb '11

05 Feb '11

Hi TUs, can you please delete dino-git ( http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=33598)? I'm the maintainer of this package and want it to be deleted because a) PKGBUILD is broken, outdated and i can't get current git versions to compile (neither master branch nor Branch_0_2) b) dino is not very popular, dino has 3 votes, dino-git 0 votes, so i think, we can live without the git package masutu

5 5

[aur-general] [community], [unsupported] and AUR
by Xyne 05 Feb '11

05 Feb '11

Hi, A post on the forum[1] brought my attention to the Official Repositories wiki page[2]. A recent note by Louipc states: "Technically, both the [community] and [unsupported] repos make up the AUR.". Is this really still true? The AUR website is completely independent of [community] now and I believe that all technical ties between [community] and [unsupported] have been severed. AUR pages on the wiki clearly refer to [unsupported] in many contexts, e.g. the main AUR article[3] contains the following snippets: "The Arch User Repository (AUR) is a community-driven repository for Arch users. It contains package descriptions (PKGBUILDs) that allow you to compile a package from source with makepkg and then install it via pacman." "[community], unlike AUR, contains binary packages" I also believe that most users immediately think of [unsupported] and only [unsupported] when speaking of the AUR. Furthermore, both are repositories in their own right, so it is a misnomer to refer to them as a singular "Arch User Repository". What is the point of claiming that [community] is part of AUR? It seems like an unnecessarily confusing vestige of [community]'s origins. [1]: https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?pid=887426 [2]: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Official_Repositories [3]: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/AUR

5 4

[aur-general] 2 packages for Lyx 2.0
by Bernardo Barros 05 Feb '11

05 Feb '11

Lyx beta3 has two packages in AUR: http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=37964 http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=45798 no idea which did it better. :-)

2 2

[aur-general] poppler rebuilds will soon move - one buggy pkg in Community
by Andreas Radke 05 Feb '11

05 Feb '11

Just a small note that we will move poppler rebuilds right after the MySQL move. So far I only know of one broken pkg in community where a fix is available: epdfview - https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/22734. Can somebody with community access test it and fix the bug? -Andy

4 4

[aur-general] Unactive user
by François Boulogne 05 Feb '11

05 Feb '11

Hello, I found that the package [1] is out of date and in the mean time, I realized the maintainer is not really active. I sent him an email several days ago, no answer. I think some packages should be removed, especially beta ones, or packages like [2] (the title does not respect the aur policy) Another point: [3] is marked as a dev package (which is the last stable version) and [4] is titled as a stable version which is out of date. Well, many things should be cleaned up. Cheers. [1] http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=28835 deja-dup [2] http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=35144 deja-dup-new [3] http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=43709 gwibber-dev [4] http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=24544 <http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=24544> <http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=24544> -- François Boulogne. Membre de l'April - Promouvoir et défendre le Logiciel Libre - http://www.april.org Un jour, ils sauront qu'il existe un univers libre. http://sciunto.wordpress.com/

3 3

[aur-general] Please Delete: perl-archlinux-messages
by Justin Davis 04 Feb '11

04 Feb '11

Please delete perl-archlinux-messages. I renamed the module from Archlinux::Messages to Archlinux::Term and uploaded a new package (perl-archlinux-term). Here is the link to the old perl-archlinux-messages: http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=36397 -- -Justin

2 1

[aur-general] Review my PKGBUILDs
by Adam Weiss 04 Feb '11

04 Feb '11

Hey all, I've been lurking for quite a while and recently decided to take the plunge and maintain a couple packages. Please give me some feedback on them since I probably missed some things: http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=34191 http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=45976 Also, this is the first time I've tried posting from Gmail, so let me know if something looks funny. Thanks, -Adam

3 4

[aur-general] lib32-portaudio forgotten... :'(
by rafael ff1 04 Feb '11

04 Feb '11

Hi all, I need *lib32-portaudio* package complying to Multilib standards in order to install PCSX2 emulator (ex: *pcsx2-svn*), but the maintainer seems to be missing, busy, in outer space or whatever and doesn't reply requests in comments or emails. And I already have the PKGBUILD ready for it! So, can someone please make this package *orphan* so I can adopt it and fix the PKGBUILD to Multilib standards? Thanks in advance!

2 2

Re: [aur-general] Add pyopencl to [community]
by Ray Rashif 03 Feb '11

03 Feb '11

On 4 February 2011 04:21, Andrea Scarpino <andrea(a)archlinux.org> wrote: > On Thursday 03 February 2011 13:49:26 Stéphane Gaudreault wrote: >> * Add pyopencl to [community] (I will use a better name, something like >> python2-pyopencl) > python2-opencl sounds better IMHO. It's all good but one thing: there either needs to be a provision for pyopencl or inclusion of the upstream module name in the description, so that the package naming doesn't hamper searches and common knowledge (i.e people would know 'pyopencl' only). I see the same issue with pyqt. Didn't we already have some discussion about the module naming convention during the major python transition?

1 0