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out-of-date or having invalid checksums.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
There are 2 packages for the Copy.com client software package:
copy - https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/copy/
copy-agent - https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/copy-agent/
I think both have PKGBUILD problems, from dependencies (the Copy.com
software uses Qt4, not Gtk, for instance) to poorly formed PKGBUILDs
(one has just a package() method and one has just a build() method).
I'm not really sure how this should be resolved, mostly because I
wouldn't pick one over the other right now.
Any one with more PKGBUILD confidence want to step in?
Also, if you're interested, sign up with this link and we both get an
extra 5gb(!) of cloud storage on copy.com:
https://copy.com?r=NXWnIn
--
Jonathan Arnold Webstream: http://hieronymus.soup.io
Talent wins games, but team work and intelligence wins championships.
Michael Jordan
Hi,
I maintain vagrant package in AUR. I believe vagrant is a very useful tool
for ArchLinux users. I am happy to continue maintaining it in AUR;
however, for the good of the community, it would be great if one of you TUs
could move vagrant into [community] as soon as possible so it could get
wider exposure. It currently has ~147 votes. Releases are infrequent, so
it has been very easy to maintain overall.
AUR package: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/vagrant/
Upstream distribution website: http://www.vagrantup.com/
Also, if you'd like to make changes to the PKGBUILD in AUR, you can submit
a pull request on GitHub: https://github.com/ido/packages-archlinux (under
the aur/vagrant directory).
Ido
Hey guys,
I'm the maintainer of the phpunit[1] package and I've talked about my idea
with Dylan Ferris, maintainer of the php-composer[2] package.
The idea is that we should find a standard place for PHAR's which are
installed by pacman instead of PEAR. Of course it's obvious that we should
omit the ".phar" part and put it in /usr/bin, but there are two problems
with it. First, if open_basedir is used in php.ini, it has to contain
/usr/bin. The other problem is that IDE's won't see them that way and cannot
be used as external libraries (which is mostly fine with composer, but
absolutely not with phpunit).
So to solve this problem, I suggest to put these packages to
/usr/share/webapps/phar or /usr/share/php with the .phar extension so the
IDE's could use them and symlink them to /usr/bin without the extension so
they could be invoked from command line as any other program.
The default open_basedir in the php package is
"/srv/http/:/home/:/tmp/:/usr/share/pear/:/usr/share/webapps/", so the
former path would be more convenient, but the latter would be more elegant
in my opinion, as PEAR packages are in /usr/share/pear/. Of course it would
be nice to include that path in the default open_basedir.
What do you think?
Regards,
Attila Bukor
[1]: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/phpunit/
[2]: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/php-composer/
Hi,
I tried reaching speps 2 weeks ago via email (quoted below), so I hope
he either reads it here or someone can disown the following packages for
me. Most of them are marked out-of-date for a while and haven't been
updated to current standards (including lilv-svn, which I now realize is
owned by a different user, but is marked out-of-date for years anyway).
I'd like to update the bunch so the AUR finally has a buildable set of
PKGBUILDs for ingen again.
Thanks.
[1] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/ingen-svn/
[2] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/raul-svn/
[3] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/ganv-svn/
[4] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/lilv-svn/
[5] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/lv2-svn/
-------- Original Message --------
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 05:12:43 +0100
From: prettyvanilla <prettyvanilla(a)posteo.at>
To: speps(a)aur.archlinux.org
Subject: ingen-svn
Hi speps,
since I've seen a few people comment on ingen being practically
unavailable on Arch (the current PKGBUILDs are outdated and don't work
together) in the release thread of ams-lv2, I tried to update all
relevant PKGBUILDs:
ingen-svn: http://pastebin.com/BhDW3t14
raul-svn: http://pastebin.com/ggy9deaY
ganv-svn: http://pastebin.com/GhJ2sbSa
lilv-svn: http://pastebin.com/6hjRzCKE
suil-svn: http://pastebin.com/qhAt9MDw
lv2-svn: http://pastebin.com/DG0gTWsZ
If you aren't interested in maintaining those packages anymore, I'd take
over, otherwise I'd be glad if you could take a look at my PKGBUILDs and
incorporate the relevant changes.
(In any case the eyes of a more experienced packager are definitely
welcome/needed... ;))
Cheers,
prettyvanilla