I attempted to message the current maintainer about getting
python-flask-oauth [1] to python2-flask-oauth, but the message bounced
with "550 5.1.1 <socialcompu(a)abv.bg>: Recipient address rejected: User
unknown in virtual mailbox table".
If this package could be orphaned, I'd appreciate it.
Thanks.
[1] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/python-flask-oauth/
=== 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
* 5 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] (5 total) ==
* firewalld-0.3.2-2 (any)
0/2 signoffs
* jack2-1.9.9.5-3 (i686)
0/1 signoffs
* oss-4.2_2007-3 (i686)
0/2 signoffs
* jack2-1.9.9.5-3 (x86_64)
0/2 signoffs
* oss-4.2_2007-3 (x86_64)
0/2 signoffs
== All packages in [community-testing] for more than 14 days (2 total) ==
* oss-4.2_2007-3 (i686), since 2013-03-14
* oss-4.2_2007-3 (x86_64), since 2013-03-14
== Top five in signoffs in last 24 hours ==
1. ibiru - 2 signoffs
2. pierre - 1 signoffs
Hi,
Please remove libgee-0.6[1].
It's idential to libgee06 on Extra.
I forgot to confirm the legacy version of libgee is existent before submitting.
Thx
[1]https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/libgee-0.6/
--
HASHIMOTO, Masato
I was in the process of creating a python3 package [1] for flask, but
I've noticed python2-flask [2] seems to conflicts+replace
"python-flask". I imagine this was for historical reasons, but this
introduces probably unintentional behavior when a package provides
python-flask (the python3 version of flask):
:: python-flask-git and python2-flask are in conflict (python-flask). Remove python2-flask? [y/N]
Would it be appropriate to (directly) contact said TU about his package,
or is it innappropriate to expect TUs to yield to AUR
packages/maintainers?
Thanks.
[1] http://ix.io/5OI
[2] https://www.archlinux.org/packages/community/any/python2-flask/
In the normal development of my application, I renamed the pkgname of my
PKGBUILD, and accidentally caused a duplicate program entry.
Can I please get https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/wifiz/ either removed,
or merged into https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/wifiz-git/? wifiz-git is
the updated version.
Thank you very much, and sorry about the trouble.
-Cody
aur/python-flask-git [1] has been marked out of date since 2012, and in
addition I've personally emailed said maintainer about the issue, with
no reply.
It seems he created a package designed before extra/python provided
python3 rather than python2. As written, however, he's attempting to
package python2 sources with python3.
I've created a PKGBUILD [2] that I'd like to upload with the same name
(which actually does use the upstream python3 sources). Might I humbly
ask that the package either be 1) renamed to python2-flask-git to give
said maintainer more time to correct the problems with his package 2)
deleted/orphaned entirely.
Thanks.
[1] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/python-flask-git/
[2] http://ix.io/5OI
I just pushed a package named libtiff-so4 [1] that builds from source an
older version of libtiff (3.9.7) and links to libtiff.so.4, since some
program/packages depends on it (like Scilab's SIVP), as can be seem here
[3].
A better name to this package would be libtiff4. But there is already a
package named libtiff4 [2] that download the package from Ubuntu. I think
this package should be renamed to libtiff4-ubuntu and so my package can be
named libtiff4.
[1]: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/libtiff-so4/
[2]: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/libtiff4/
[3]: http://www.asmail.be/msg0055009514.html
--
Thiago Kenji Okada <thiago.mast3r(a)gmail.com>
PGP Key: EEC09705