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

[aur-general] single-user gnome-shell-theme pkgs
by Jesse Jaara 25 Sep '11

25 Sep '11

6 8

[aur-general] Merge Request
by Max Roder 25 Sep '11

25 Sep '11

Hi, please merge the votes of machine-update https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=2806 into lico-update https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=52555 (its name was changed by upstream). Thanks, Max

2 1

[aur-general] Deletion request : gnash-bzr and gnash-common-bzr
by Jekyll Wu 23 Sep '11

23 Sep '11

The upstream[1] is using git now, so gnash-bzr[2] and gnash-common-bzr[3] can be deleted now. [1] - http://www.gnu.org/software/gnash/download.html [2] - https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=30304 [3] - https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=30303

2 1

[aur-general] Removal request
by Antonis Kouliakiotis 23 Sep '11

23 Sep '11

Please remove nnotes-git [1]. The project has been renamed to 'notably' so I submitted a new package by that name [2] [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=52091 [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=52534

2 1

[aur-general] Libunwind orphan request.
by Phillip Marvin 23 Sep '11

23 Sep '11

Two weeks ago I contacted the maintainer of libunwind and sent him an updated PKGBUILD, but I haven't heard anything more and the package is not fixed. So can I have the package orphaned please. Phillip Marvin

2 2

[aur-general] Deletion Request
by nem 23 Sep '11

23 Sep '11

good day! please remove teamspeak3rc2 [1]. it's an exact duplication of teamspeak3 [2]. there's neither a maintainer for "rc2" nor are there votes on it. regards, nem [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=51851 - remove [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=33023 - keep

2 1

[aur-general] Head over Heels (hoh 1.01-5) download problems
by SanskritFritz 23 Sep '11

23 Sep '11

I took over the maintenance of hoh. The problem is that makepkg uses wget to download the sources, but wget gets disabled upstream via .htaccess. I contacted the author, he said, he has no sufficient permissions to change this on the webserver where the files are hosted. The previous AUR maintainer of hoh solved this issue simply by hosting the file on his site (which is allowed, settled through email with the author). Spoofing the user-agent in with 'wget --user-agent' or using curl works ok. My question is, what is the recommended way now. Should I host the file somewhere, or should I modify the PKGBUILD so that it downloads and unpacks the source manually, or is there another way I overlooked?

3 3

[aur-general] Merge request
by Jesse Jaara 21 Sep '11

21 Sep '11

[1] ksh and [2] ast-ksh are basicly the same package. But have differend kind of PKGBUILDS, and I think they should be merged to gether. ksh has better name i think. [1]https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=13772 [2]https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=40749 -- (\_ /) copy the bunny to your profile (0.o ) to help him achieve world domination. (> <) come join the dark side. /_|_\ (we have cookies.)

2 1

[aur-general] Deletion requests: python-yenc and texmakerx
by Clément Démoulins 21 Sep '11

21 Sep '11

Hi, Could you please delete the following packages : * python-yenc [1] has been renamed python2-yenc * texmakerx [2] has been renamed texstudio Thanks Clément Démoulins 1: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=7743 2: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=32206 -- Clef GPG : 0xDD51E028

2 1

[aur-general] Mandatory comment along with OOD-flag
by nem 21 Sep '11

21 Sep '11

good day! recently i experienced some wild out-of-date flagging without any comments or even backupped reasons for codelite [1] from different users (even multiple times by the same) over the past two weeks. someone has been kind enough to help me unflagging these. however this is not only very annoying without any reasons (comments or email of the flaggers) whatsoever but also kind of lighted some concern about the carelessness of how people are flagging. they don't seem to even read the latest comments of the package or try to get a grasp of their reasoning ([1] is the stable version. they probably want the svn version which is also available). i thought about that and putting a fulltext description in the pkg-desc field is probably not what it's meant to be. so what came to my mind was a mandatory comment along with flagging to get an idea, why the person thinks it's out of date. that would make them think before flagging and also make them come back and read the response and not flag it out-of-date again. anyone else having similar issues? or am i overreacting here? regards, nem [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=18809

5 9