July 2013 - Aur-general - lists.archlinux.org

[aur-general] Disown aarddict
by thirtythreeforty 30 Jul '13

30 Jul '13

Hello, Could we get the aarddict PKGBUILD disowned in the AUR? It hasn't been updated in a long time, is out of date, and the maintainer seems to be absent. I'm willing to own the package, although seems others wouldn't mind owning it either. Thanks!

2 1

[aur-general] Disown request
by Hugo Osvaldo Barrera 29 Jul '13

29 Jul '13

https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/pidgin-gpg No reply from author, package out-of-date for months. Thanks, -- Hugo Osvaldo Barrera

2 1

[aur-general] Signoff report for [community-testing]
by Arch Website Notification 29 Jul '13

29 Jul '13

=== Signoff report for [community-testing] === https://www.archlinux.org/packages/signoffs/ There are currently: * 4 new packages in last 24 hours * 0 known bad packages * 0 packages not accepting signoffs * 0 fully signed off packages * 6 packages missing signoffs * 0 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.) == New packages in [community-testing] in last 24 hours (4 total) == * libkkc-0.2.7-1 (i686) * libkkc-data-0.2.7-1 (i686) * libkkc-0.2.7-1 (x86_64) * libkkc-data-0.2.7-1 (x86_64) == Incomplete signoffs for [community] (4 total) == * libkkc-0.2.7-1 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * libkkc-data-0.2.7-1 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * libkkc-0.2.7-1 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * libkkc-data-0.2.7-1 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs == Incomplete signoffs for [unknown] (2 total) == * uwsgi-1.9.13-2 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * uwsgi-1.9.13-2 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs == Top five in signoffs in last 24 hours == 1. thomas - 1 signoffs 2. andyrtr - 1 signoffs 3. lcarlier - 1 signoffs

1 0

[aur-general] Deletion request: linux-aufs_friendly-stbl
by maze＠strahlungsfrei.de 29 Jul '13

29 Jul '13

As the current maintainer, I'd like to ask for deletion of the package linux-aufs_friendly-stbl[1] from the AUR. As I learned, it does not comply with the AUR guidelines, since it is essentially the same as the linux-aufs_friendly[2] package. Thanks, Martin [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/linux-aufs_friendly-stbl/ [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/linux-aufs_friendly/

2 1

[aur-general] Signoff report for [community-testing]
by Arch Website Notification 28 Jul '13

28 Jul '13

=== 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 * 2 packages missing signoffs * 0 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 [unknown] (2 total) == * uwsgi-1.9.13-2 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * uwsgi-1.9.13-2 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs == Top five in signoffs in last 24 hours == 1. andyrtr - 2 signoffs

1 0

[aur-general] gettext and intl directory
by Chirantan Ekbote 27 Jul '13

27 Jul '13

Hello, I am the maintainer for the git version of Midnight Commander[1]. Since the release of gettext 0.18.3, building midnight commander fails with the following error: configure.ac:497: error: required file 'intl/Makefile.in' not found Makefile.am:4: error: required directory ./intl does not exist lib/Makefile.am: installing 'config/depcomp' parallel-tests: installing 'config/test-driver' automake failed to generate Makefile.in It seems that gettext is not creating the intl directory, which is required by mc. If I downgrade to gettext 0.18.2.1 and try to build, then it seems that the intl directory is properly created and the build succeeds. My question is: since this change of behavior happens with the latest version, is this a bug with gettext or with midnight commander? I am not very familiar with gettext and I haven't been able to find any relevant documentation on the internets so any insight would be very useful. Thank you, Chirantan [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/mc-git/

2 1

[aur-general] Delete request
by Iru Cai 27 Jul '13

27 Jul '13

Hi, moc-ape[1], moc-pulseaudio[2], moc-unstable-ape[3] are being orphaned, and they're the same package as moc in the official repository. Thanks. Iru Cai [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/moc-ape/ [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/moc-pulseaudio/ [3] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/moc-unstable-ape/

2 1

[aur-general] Merge request
by Evan Teitelman 27 Jul '13

27 Jul '13

Could you please merge 'wpscan-svn' (https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/wpscan-svn/) into 'wpscan-git' (https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/wpscan-git/)?

2 1

[aur-general] Merge request
by Evan Teitelman 27 Jul '13

27 Jul '13

Could you please merge 'rfidiot-kali-git' (https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/rfidiot-kali-git/) into 'rfidiot-git' (https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/rfidiot-git/)?

2 1

[aur-general] Signoff report for [community-testing]
by Arch Website Notification 27 Jul '13

27 Jul '13

=== 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 * 2 packages missing signoffs * 0 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 [unknown] (2 total) == * uwsgi-1.9.13-2 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * uwsgi-1.9.13-2 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs == Top five in signoffs in last 24 hours == 1. foutrelis - 3 signoffs 2. thomas - 2 signoffs 3. allan - 2 signoffs

1 0