November 2014 - Aur-general - lists.archlinux.org

[aur-general] Signoff report for [community-testing]
by Arch Website Notification 28 Nov '14

28 Nov '14

=== 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 * 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.) == Incomplete signoffs for [community] (11 total) == * freevo-1.9.0-14 (any) 0/2 signoffs * gdal-1.11.1-3 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * performous-1.0-1 (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 * gdal-1.11.1-3 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * performous-1.0-1 (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 - 3 signoffs 2. bpiotrowski - 2 signoffs

1 0

Re: [aur-general] AUR Comment for customizepkg-ald
by Daniel Albers 27 Nov '14

27 Nov '14

[ Copying aur-general for other opnions and get clarification on AUR rules out there ] Hey Jonathan, Thanks for maintaining AUR and keeping the Arch ecosystem healthy. Some honest questions/comments regarding the deletion of the AUR package customizepkg-ald: The package was a patched version of customizepkg. There are thousands of AUR packages that are variants of other packages and I can't see any problem with that. In my understanding that's part of what AUR is for. Is it not? It's been customary for AUR deletions, orphanings etc. to have a two weeks grace period. Should that not also apply to TUs? The .tar.gz that you mentioned that violated the "no binaries on AUR" rule contained nothing but ASCII files (as does customizepk¹). If I unzip the tarball and re-upload it, does that not violate the rule? What if I also untar it and upload each text file individually? Cheers, Daniel ¹ https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/customizepkg/ On Di, 2014-11-25 at 18:52 +0000, notify(a)aur.archlinux.org wrote: > from https://aur.archlinux.org//pkgbase/customizepkg-ald/ > jsteel wrote: > > Ah, I just realised this is an intentional duplicate of customizepkg; > please don't submit duplicate packages, submit an orphan request > instead. Deleting. > > --- > If you no longer wish to receive notifications about this package, > please go the the above package page and click the UnNotify button.

2 2

[aur-general] Signoff report for [community-testing]
by Arch Website Notification 27 Nov '14

27 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) == * icecast-2.4.1-1 (i686) * icecast-2.4.1-1 (x86_64) == Incomplete signoffs for [community] (13 total) == * freevo-1.9.0-14 (any) 0/2 signoffs * gdal-1.11.1-3 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * icecast-2.4.1-1 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * performous-1.0-1 (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 * gdal-1.11.1-3 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * icecast-2.4.1-1 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * performous-1.0-1 (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 0

[aur-general] android-samples-5.0 can be removed
by Christoph Bayer 26 Nov '14

26 Nov '14

Hello, I just accidentally uploaded a miss named package, I have re-uploaded a version with correct naming, but the old is still here to be removed: It is called "android-samples-5.0". Thank you very much in advance! Best regards, Christoph Bayer

2 1

[aur-general] Signoff report for [community-testing]
by Arch Website Notification 26 Nov '14

26 Nov '14

=== Signoff report for [community-testing] === https://www.archlinux.org/packages/signoffs/ There are currently: * 8 new packages in last 24 hours * 0 known bad packages * 0 packages not accepting signoffs * 0 fully signed off packages * 31 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 (8 total) == * gdal-1.11.1-3 (i686) * python-h5py-2.3.1-3 (i686) * python-pytables-3.1.1-4 (i686) * vtk-6.1.0-1 (i686) * gdal-1.11.1-3 (x86_64) * python-h5py-2.3.1-3 (x86_64) * python-pytables-3.1.1-4 (x86_64) * vtk-6.1.0-1 (x86_64) == Incomplete signoffs for [community] (29 total) == * freevo-1.9.0-14 (any) 0/2 signoffs * acpi_call-1.1.0-15 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * android-tools-5.0.0_r7-1 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * bbswitch-0.8-19 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * envoy-11.1-1 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * gdal-1.11.1-3 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * performous-1.0-1 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * python-h5py-2.3.1-3 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * python-pytables-3.1.1-4 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * r8168-8.039.00-4 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * rt3562sta-2.4.1.1_r1-13 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * tp_smapi-0.41-56 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * vhba-module-20140629-10 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * virtualbox-modules-4.3.20-2 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * vtk-6.1.0-1 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * acpi_call-1.1.0-15 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * android-tools-5.0.0_r7-1 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * bbswitch-0.8-19 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * envoy-11.1-1 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * gdal-1.11.1-3 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * performous-1.0-1 (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 * r8168-8.039.00-4 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * rt3562sta-2.4.1.1_r1-13 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * tp_smapi-0.41-56 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * vhba-module-20140629-10 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * virtualbox-modules-4.3.20-2 (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 - 5 signoffs 2. foutrelis - 4 signoffs 3. bisson - 2 signoffs

1 0

[aur-general] Signoff report for [community-testing]
by Arch Website Notification 25 Nov '14

25 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 * 23 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) == * android-tools-5.0.0_r7-1 (i686) * android-tools-5.0.0_r7-1 (x86_64) == Incomplete signoffs for [community] (21 total) == * freevo-1.9.0-14 (any) 0/2 signoffs * acpi_call-1.1.0-15 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * android-tools-5.0.0_r7-1 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * bbswitch-0.8-19 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * envoy-11.1-1 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * performous-1.0-1 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * r8168-8.039.00-4 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * rt3562sta-2.4.1.1_r1-13 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * tp_smapi-0.41-56 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * vhba-module-20140629-10 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * virtualbox-modules-4.3.20-2 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * acpi_call-1.1.0-15 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * android-tools-5.0.0_r7-1 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * bbswitch-0.8-19 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * envoy-11.1-1 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * performous-1.0-1 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * r8168-8.039.00-4 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * rt3562sta-2.4.1.1_r1-13 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * tp_smapi-0.41-56 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * vhba-module-20140629-10 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * virtualbox-modules-4.3.20-2 (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. bisson - 10 signoffs 2. foutrelis - 6 signoffs 3. anatolik - 2 signoffs

1 0

[aur-general] mkinitcpio/mdadm/mdadm_udev fail to start raid10
by Ido Rosen 25 Nov '14

25 Nov '14

The the default configuration under ArchLinux and DEVICE partitions in mdadm.conf, mdadm and the mdadm mkinitcpio hook fail to load the raid10 kernel module automatically, and as a result raid10 arrays fail to load on boot in Arch. My temporary workaround is to include the raid10 kernel module in the mkinitcpio.conf MODULES= list, it could also be included in /etc/modules-load.d/*.conf, but this should not be necessary, and is currently not necessary for raid1 arrays. I do not think this is an upstream problem since my LFS and Gentoo boxes do load the correct (raid10) kernel module without any specific configuration to do so. Has anyone else replicated this behavior? Suggestions: - Preferred: Make the initcpio hook/mdadm udev rules/whatever loads raid1.ko normally also detect raid10 (and raid5, raid6, ...) arrays properly. - Alternatively: Add a section to the SW RAID wiki page describing how to make the module load persist on boot (https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Software_RAID_and_LVM#Load_kernel_modu…) Ido

2 2

[aur-general] Please delete texlive-gantt
by Alfredo Palhares 24 Nov '14

24 Nov '14

Hello, Please delete texlive-gantt[1] The package is now in textlive-latexextra [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/texlive-gantt/

3 4

[aur-general] Signoff report for [community-testing]
by Arch Website Notification 24 Nov '14

24 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 * 21 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) == * performous-1.0-1 (i686) * performous-1.0-1 (x86_64) == Incomplete signoffs for [community] (19 total) == * freevo-1.9.0-14 (any) 0/2 signoffs * acpi_call-1.1.0-15 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * bbswitch-0.8-19 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * envoy-11.1-1 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * performous-1.0-1 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * r8168-8.039.00-4 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * rt3562sta-2.4.1.1_r1-13 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * tp_smapi-0.41-56 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * vhba-module-20140629-10 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * virtualbox-modules-4.3.20-2 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * acpi_call-1.1.0-15 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * bbswitch-0.8-19 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * envoy-11.1-1 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * performous-1.0-1 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * r8168-8.039.00-4 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * rt3562sta-2.4.1.1_r1-13 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * tp_smapi-0.41-56 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * vhba-module-20140629-10 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * virtualbox-modules-4.3.20-2 (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. dan - 5 signoffs 2. anatolik - 1 signoffs

1 0

[aur-general] Unsupported architectures in the AUR
by Doug Newgard 24 Nov '14

24 Nov '14

Through searching, I've found discussions about people adding unsupported architectures (specifically arm and ppc) to their current i686/x86_64 PKGBUILDs. Nobody has a problem with that (I don't, either). What I haven't found is any discussion about packages that are *exclusively* for one of these architectures. Is this something that's allowed or not? Doug

9 11