Aur-general November 2014

aur-general@lists.archlinux.org

49 participants
55 discussions

[aur-general] ttf-google-webfonts{,-distilled,-git,-hg} mess
by Jason St. John 19 Jun '19

19 Jun '19

I am the current maintainer of the AUR package ttf-google-webfonts-hg[4], and I'm bothered by the mess of various packages there are for Google's Web Fonts project. It's not at all KISS in its current state. There are currently four different AUR packages[1][2][3][4] that essentially supply the same files, and all four packages conflict with each other. Around August of 2012, the package named ttf-google-webfonts[1] was orphaned, and user w0ng created a GitHub repository[5] that mirrors the Mercurial repository[6] on Google Code (why?). Then, the new maintainer changed the original ttf-google-webfonts package from a VCS-type package that simply lacked "-hg" in the name to a package that pulls tarballs from w0ng's GitHub repo[5]. As you can see in the comments for ttf-google-webfonts[1], this has caused all sorts of confusion and messages about the package being out-of-date or having invalid checksums. To get around these issues, user epinephrine created the package ttf-google-webfonts-git[3] that clones w0ng's GitHub repo[5] instead of pulling tarballs from it, which significantly reduces the maintenance required on the package. Then, user Gently created a package named ttf-google-webfonts-distilled[2] that pulls a tarball from w0ng's GitHub repo[5] and only installs a small subset of the fonts therein. Shortly after ttf-google-webfonts[1] was changed from being a Mercurial-based package and not liking the direction that the package was taking, I reuploaded the original ttf-google-webfonts package as ttf-google-webfonts-hg[4] for people that simply wanted the old package back that uses the actual Google Web Fonts repository to download the files. To clean up this mess, I propose that ttf-google-webfonts-distilled[2] and ttf-google-webfonts-git[3] be deleted outright, for what should be obvious reasons. I also propose that ttf-google-webfonts[1] be deleted because of how frequently the Web Fonts project is updated and because the project lacks version numbers. If people really feel strongly about keeping that maintenance nightmare, then let them have it, but I really don't see what advantage it provides over the original ttf-google-webfonts-hg[4] other than one less makedepends. I apologize for the huge email, but this situation really is a mess. [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/ttf-google-webfonts/ [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/ttf-google-webfonts-distilled/ [3] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/ttf-google-webfonts-git/ [4] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/ttf-google-webfonts-hg/ [5] https://github.com/w0ng/googlefontdirectory [6] https://code.google.com/p/googlefontdirectory/ Jason

14 23

[aur-general] package review
by Jeremy Audet 19 Jan '15

19 Jan '15

Hi, Would anyone be so nice as to review my libgroove package? The current package [1] and proposed package [2] are both on GitHub. The package is for a C library, and I am hoping to add a pkg-config config file (libgroove.pc) to the package. I've never written one of these before, and am worried about accidentally trashing users' systems. [1] https://github.com/Ichimonji10/PKGBUILDs/tree/master/libgroove [2] https://github.com/Ichimonji10/PKGBUILDs/tree/libgroove-pkgconfig/libgroove — Jeremy "Ichimonji10" Audet

5 6

[aur-general] Compiz package naming
by Rob McCathie 10 Jan '15

10 Jan '15

Hello AUR general & Compiz package maintainers. There was some discussion about Compiz packages a little while ago, i don't think that much came of it. I'd like to re-open the discussion. My opinions/suggestions: Calling the 0.8 series "compiz" and the 0.9 series "compiz-devel" is no longer correct, it hasn't been for quite some time. All information on this page: http://www.compiz.org/ is completely wrong and out of date, like 5 years out of date, and should not be used as a reference for anything. Tracking of the state of Compiz should be done from here: https://launchpad.net/compiz Development of the 0.8 series is as close to being dead as it could be. Unless you count 2 tiny commits 5 months ago, nothing has been done in 16 months, and even that 16 month old commit was a minor change just to get it working with KDE 4.10, with the commit prior to that being an additional 5 months back. http://cgit.compiz.org/compiz/core/log/?h=compiz-0.8 My suggestion is pretty simple, "compiz" becomes the 0.9 series, the 0.8 series becomes "compiz-legacy". Any 0.9 series packages that have "core" in their name should have it removed, since the concept of Compiz being split up has been dropped since the 0.9 series. The 0.9 series doesn't have a "core" component, it's just "compiz". Some examples: martadinata666's "compiz-core" package would become "compiz-legacy-core" dev_rs0's "compiz-core-devel" package would become simply "compiz" Chazza's "compiz-core-bzr" package would become "compiz-bzr" flexiondotorg's "compiz-core-mate" package would become "compiz-legacy-core-mate" My "compiz-gtk-standalone" package would become "compiz-legacy-gtk-standalone" All the "compiz-fusion-plugins-*" packages would become "compiz-legacy-fusion-plugins-*" ...and so on. What are everyone's thoughts? -- Regards, Rob McCathie

9 22

[aur-general] Signoff report for [community-testing]
by Arch Website Notification 30 Nov '14

30 Nov '14

=== Signoff report for [community-testing] === https://www.archlinux.org/packages/signoffs/ There are currently: * 2 new packages in last 24 hours * 0 known bad packages * 0 packages not accepting signoffs * 0 fully signed off packages * 15 packages missing signoffs * 3 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 (2 total) == * bfgminer-5.0.0-1 (i686) * bfgminer-5.0.0-1 (x86_64) == Incomplete signoffs for [community] (13 total) == * freevo-1.9.0-14 (any) 0/2 signoffs * bfgminer-5.0.0-1 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * dart-1.8-1 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * gdal-1.11.1-3 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * python-h5py-2.3.1-3 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * python-pytables-3.1.1-4 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * vtk-6.1.0-1 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * bfgminer-5.0.0-1 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * dart-1.8-1 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * gdal-1.11.1-3 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * python-h5py-2.3.1-3 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * python-pytables-3.1.1-4 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * vtk-6.1.0-1 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs == Incomplete signoffs for [unknown] (2 total) == * packagekit-qt-0.9.2-2 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * packagekit-qt-0.9.2-2 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs == All packages in [community-testing] for more than 14 days (3 total) == * freevo-1.9.0-14 (any), since 2014-08-27 * packagekit-qt-0.9.2-2 (i686), since 2014-09-29 * packagekit-qt-0.9.2-2 (x86_64), since 2014-09-29 == Top five in signoffs in last 24 hours == 1. fyan - 2 signoffs

1 0

[aur-general] Misspelled email on account registration
by Sergio Baldovi 29 Nov '14

29 Nov '14

Hi, some days ago I register an account (serbalgi) on AUR with a misspelled email address. The activation mail has not arrived and the account has not been validated. Anyone know if there is an expiration timeout? I've also tried a password reset (d'oh!) and a random login states: "Your password has been reset. If you just created a new account, please use the link from the confirmation email to set an initial password. Otherwise, please request a reset key on the Password Reset page." I think I'm sort of stuck with the activation.

2 2

[aur-general] Signoff report for [community-testing]
by Arch Website Notification 29 Nov '14

29 Nov '14

=== Signoff report for [community-testing] === https://www.archlinux.org/packages/signoffs/ There are currently: * 2 new packages in last 24 hours * 0 known bad packages * 0 packages not accepting signoffs * 0 fully signed off packages * 13 packages missing signoffs * 3 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 (2 total) == * dart-1.8-1 (i686) * dart-1.8-1 (x86_64) == Incomplete signoffs for [community] (11 total) == * freevo-1.9.0-14 (any) 0/2 signoffs * dart-1.8-1 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * gdal-1.11.1-3 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * python-h5py-2.3.1-3 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * python-pytables-3.1.1-4 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * vtk-6.1.0-1 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * dart-1.8-1 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * gdal-1.11.1-3 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * python-h5py-2.3.1-3 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * python-pytables-3.1.1-4 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * vtk-6.1.0-1 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs == Incomplete signoffs for [unknown] (2 total) == * packagekit-qt-0.9.2-2 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * packagekit-qt-0.9.2-2 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs == All packages in [community-testing] for more than 14 days (3 total) == * freevo-1.9.0-14 (any), since 2014-08-27 * packagekit-qt-0.9.2-2 (i686), since 2014-09-29 * packagekit-qt-0.9.2-2 (x86_64), since 2014-09-29 == Top five in signoffs in last 24 hours == 1. foutrelis - 2 signoffs 2. bisson - 2 signoffs

1 0

[aur-general] Package promotion process
by Troy Engel 29 Nov '14

29 Nov '14

When a package has hundreds of votes, what keeps it from getting promoted into Community? I'm talking specifically about cower: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/cower/ Bootstrapping AUR on fresh installs is manual, what's the reason cower hasn't been promoted to Community so it's easy to install with pacman and have AUR usable out-of-the-box? (apologies if this has been discussed before and I'm opening some sort of hornet's nest) -te

5 4

Re: [aur-general] Package promotion process
by Troy Engel 29 Nov '14

29 Nov '14

On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 11:38 AM, Daniel Micay <danielmicay(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 28/11/14 12:32 PM, Dave Reisner wrote: >> >> It shall never return. > > Never say never, the rules could be revisited one day :P. It makes sense > to forbid automatic installation, but it's a bit silly to forbid search > / downloading from the AUR when we permit it for other third party > dumping grounds like PyPi. > Yeah, I mean no offense to the current rule, but AUR is a fantastic part of Arch and not having *anything* which can install an AUR package in Community seems... disingenuous to the adoption of AUR from a fresh install. I understand this can be a political battle ("which AUR helper is best") but cower sure seems like a great candidate to just help people get started. $0.02, -te

2 1

[aur-general] Delete request: meld-beta
by Gary van der Merwe 29 Nov '14

29 Nov '14

Please delete meld-beta. The new gtk3 port is now available in extra, so I don't plan on maintaining this package further. Those who want to use dev versions should rather use meld-git. https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/meld-beta/ Thanks, Gary

4 6

[aur-general] Moving opensc from community to AUR
by Sébastien Luttringer 29 Nov '14

29 Nov '14

Hello, I'm not using opensc anymore, is there a Dev/Tu interested by taking care of it? I will move it to AUR if nobody is interested. Cheers, -- Sébastien "Seblu" Luttringer https://seblu.net | Twitter: @seblu42 GPG: 0x2072D77A

4 4

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

Aur-general November 2014