=== Signoff report for [community-testing] ===
https://www.archlinux.org/packages/signoffs/
There are currently:
* 0 new packages in last 24 hours
* 0 known bad packages
* 0 packages not accepting signoffs
* 0 fully signed off packages
* 4 packages missing signoffs
* 2 packages older than 14 days
(Note: the word 'package' as used here refers to packages as grouped by
pkgbase, architecture, and repository; e.g., one PKGBUILD produces one
package per architecture, even if it is a split package.)
== Incomplete signoffs for [community] (4 total) ==
* dbmail-3.0.0_rc3-1 (i686)
0/2 signoffs
* ext4magic-0.3.0-1 (i686)
0/2 signoffs
* dbmail-3.0.0_rc3-1 (x86_64)
0/2 signoffs
* ext4magic-0.3.0-1 (x86_64)
0/2 signoffs
== All packages in [community-testing] for more than 14 days (2 total) ==
* dbmail-3.0.0_rc3-1 (i686), since 2012-01-15
* dbmail-3.0.0_rc3-1 (x86_64), since 2012-01-16
== Top five in signoffs in last 24 hours ==
1. allan - 6 signoffs
2. bisson - 5 signoffs
3. dan - 4 signoffs
4. ibiru - 3 signoffs
5. stephane - 2 signoffs
Can someone delete 3to2-hg? I maintain 3to2 as well as the latest version
from mercurial, but since the project has stopped updating there is no
point in maintaining the development version.
Thanks,
Jarek Sedlacek
Hi everybody,
at first I would like to say thank you. I'm with archlinux since quite
some time now (I think it was 2009 when I moved over from debian), but I
never had anything serious to ask on a list or the forum. Sometimes the
guys from the IRC-Channels or the archaudios where helping out. All the
rest I could solve on my own with the help of the docs and the archives
in the forum. For me this shows how good arch works!
Now, I would like to advertize archlinux in the pure community. For that
I would like to update as many of the pure-packages as possible.
Unfortunately the package of pure itself is unmaintained since quite a
while. It is stuck with version 0.47 where the actual version of pure
is 0.51. So it might be about half a year, that nobody took care of
it:
http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=22893
I wrote a mail to the maintainer 'sdiehl' yesterday and I asked him to
disown the package so that I can update and maintain it. If this mail
rests unanswered I'd ask somebody to disown it.
With kind regards,
Bjoern
please disown the next package
cellwriter
https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=12663
the user dont respond any request, by message in aur page, for at least
a few weeks
and, the package is outdated for a years. I can't send email, because
isn't.
It's flagged out-of-date cause not compile. I can mantain it.
Thanks,
Adonay
please disown the next package
Pidgin-Festival
https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=22970
the user dont respond any request, by message in aur page and email,
for at least a few weeks
and, the package is outdated for a weeks.
I flagged out-of-date cause not compile. I can mantain it.
Thanks,
Adonay
=== Signoff report for [community-testing] ===
https://www.archlinux.org/packages/signoffs/
There are currently:
* 0 new packages in last 24 hours
* 0 known bad packages
* 0 packages not accepting signoffs
* 0 fully signed off packages
* 4 packages missing signoffs
* 2 packages older than 14 days
(Note: the word 'package' as used here refers to packages as grouped by
pkgbase, architecture, and repository; e.g., one PKGBUILD produces one
package per architecture, even if it is a split package.)
== Incomplete signoffs for [community] (4 total) ==
* dbmail-3.0.0_rc3-1 (i686)
0/2 signoffs
* ext4magic-0.3.0-1 (i686)
0/2 signoffs
* dbmail-3.0.0_rc3-1 (x86_64)
0/2 signoffs
* ext4magic-0.3.0-1 (x86_64)
0/2 signoffs
== All packages in [community-testing] for more than 14 days (2 total) ==
* dbmail-3.0.0_rc3-1 (i686), since 2012-01-15
* dbmail-3.0.0_rc3-1 (x86_64), since 2012-01-16
== Top five in signoffs in last 24 hours ==
1. tomegun - 3 signoffs
2. thomas - 1 signoffs
Browse to: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=50911
Here is what I show for required by package... why are some of these
doubled? Required by broadcom-wl-ck broadcom-wl-ck lirc-ck lirc-ck
nvidia-275xx-ck nvidia-275xx-ck nvidia-beta-ck nvidia-ck nvidia-ck r8168-ck
r8168-ck vhba-module-ck vhba-module-ck
Hi!
python-vatnumber is Hopelessly outdated (0.5 while current is 1.0),
orphaned and depends on python2, so I submitted it as python2-vatnumber for
easier recognition
Thanks!
Luis