Hi, could you please delete my package rasqal-latest:
http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=50322
It was a dependency for 4-store, which required the new API, but the version
of rasqal in extra has been updated, so this package is redundant now.
Thanks!
-Leif
Hello,
I'll be inactive starting from tomorrow (July 18) up to July 25. I'm
going on a short vacation. I'm taking laptop with me, but it doesn't
have Arch installed so no package updates from me for the next week.
Lukas
Hi,
Please can you orphan weechat-git [1]. I emailed the maintainer on 2nd
July with a much more cleaner PKGBUILD but not had reply in two weeks.
Thanks in advance,
Mark
Hi all,
I'm the maintainer of the package pcsx2-svn[1]. PCSX2 from now on will
install files in a different folder than /opt/pcsx2 - I'm still going
to adapt the PKGBUILD. Plugins, as I can see in Archlinux Packaging
Standards [2], should go to /var/lib/pcsx2/PLUGINNAME.so... However,
pcsx2 is a 32 bit package and only works in 64 bit because it uses
lib32 packages.
In my 64 bit system, I can see that the compilation of pcsx2 [gcc
-m32, thanks to gcc-multilib] gives me ELF 32 bit plugins, which makes
it a little bit weird to have it inside /var/lib/pcsx2 - which is a
system's architecture folder. However, on 32 bit systems, there would
be no problem putting plugins in /var/lib/pcsx2.
Having that said, where should 32 and 64 bit compilations of PCSX2 put
its plugins (talking about /varlib/pcsx2 and /var/lib32/pcsx2)?
[1] http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=21899
[2] https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_Packaging_Standards
Thanks in advance,
Rafael
Please orphan zpaq [1]. I contacted tuxspirit by email and he agreed to
transfer it to me, but he forgot to orphan the package and he doesn't seem
to check his emails often (more than a week with no replies).
[1] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=29726
All of these packages are either orphaned/out-of-date/duplicate or
deprecated. Could someone delete these please ?
http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=47038http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=47308http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=49704http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=50704http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=44101
Also, adobe at one point had three seperate flash releases available, and
had versioning/architecture issues that required three seperate AUR
packages. Their last release consolidates all these releases, rendering two
of these packages obsolete. Adobe also tends to use adjectives like
prerelease/beta/preview randomly, causing further package naming issues.
(eg, all -prerelease packages have now become -beta, when there used to be
seperate -beta & -prerelease releases earlier). What's a good way to
consolidate users of the three packages into the correct one ?
-Anish
--
As long as the music's loud enough, we won't hear the world falling apart.