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

[aur-general] [HEADS-UP] Meta data and split package support in the AUR
by Lukas Fleischer 27 Jul '14

27 Jul '14

Hello, I plan to do the next major AUR release by late May or June and I thought this might be a good time to let people know what is going on behind the scenes. AUR 3.0.0 will be able to read metadata from source packages. These metadata will be read from a file called .AURINFO (contained in the source tarball). Dave wrote several tools [1], including mkaurball which can be used to automatically build a source tarball with metadata so you don't need to worry about creating this file on your own. Having this information available means that: 1. We can drop the PKGBUILD parser from the AUR. The parser will still be available in the upcoming release but it will be marked as deprecated and a warning will be displayed whenever someone tries to upload a source tarball without metadata. 2. We can implement other things that were blocked by the AUR PKGBUILD parser being incomplete and inaccurate. Specifically, the next release will support split packages. Things that are on our TODO list: * Test the new AUR code. The split package code is still experimental. * Fix and extend the AUR RPC interface. * Test Dave's pkgbuild-introspection. * Move pkgbuild-introspection (or at least mkaurball) to [community]. It would also be nice to get metadata generation integrated into makepkg so that people no longer need to install mkaurball to generate source tarballs for the AUR. Regards, Lukas [1] https://github.com/falconindy/pkgbuild-introspection

4 6

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

27 Jul '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 * 19 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 [community] (19 total) == * acpi_call-1.1.0-9 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * bbswitch-0.8-13 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * lz4-120-1 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * r8168-8.038.00-8 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * radvd-2.1-1 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * rt3562sta-2.4.1.1_r1-7 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * tp_smapi-0.41-51 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * vhba-module-20140629-4 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * virtualbox-4.3.14-2 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * virtualbox-modules-4.3.14-2 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * acpi_call-1.1.0-9 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * bbswitch-0.8-13 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * lz4-120-1 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * r8168-8.038.00-8 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * radvd-2.1-1 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * tp_smapi-0.41-51 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * vhba-module-20140629-4 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * virtualbox-4.3.14-2 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * virtualbox-modules-4.3.14-2 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs == Top five in signoffs in last 24 hours == 1. fyan - 2 signoffs 2. anatolik - 1 signoffs

1 0

[aur-general] Frontpage
by Lex Black 26 Jul '14

26 Jul '14

Since the creation of an extra mailing list, shouldn't the frontpage be adjusted to reflect the change? Currently: "Discussion General discussion regarding the Arch User Repository (AUR) and Trusted User structure takes place on aur-general. This list can be used for package orphan requests, merge requests, and deletion requests. For discussion relating to the development of the AUR, use the aur-dev mailing list." Since the request system changed at whole (requests possible from the webinterface; aur-requests ML) the sentence about the requests should be removed or altered to reflect the current system? Best regards

2 1

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

26 Jul '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 * 27 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 (2 total) == * partimage-0.6.9-6 (i686) * partimage-0.6.9-6 (x86_64) == Incomplete signoffs for [community] (27 total) == * acpi_call-1.1.0-9 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * bbswitch-0.8-13 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * lz4-120-1 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * mpv-0.4.1-2 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * mythplugins-1:0.27.3-1 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * mythtv-1:0.27.3-1 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * partimage-0.6.9-6 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * r8168-8.038.00-8 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * radvd-2.1-1 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * rt3562sta-2.4.1.1_r1-7 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * tp_smapi-0.41-51 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * vhba-module-20140629-4 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * virtualbox-4.3.14-2 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * virtualbox-modules-4.3.14-2 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * acpi_call-1.1.0-9 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * bbswitch-0.8-13 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * lz4-120-1 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * mpv-0.4.1-2 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * mythplugins-1:0.27.3-1 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * mythtv-1:0.27.3-1 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * partimage-0.6.9-6 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * r8168-8.038.00-8 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * radvd-2.1-1 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * tp_smapi-0.41-51 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * vhba-module-20140629-4 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * virtualbox-4.3.14-2 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * virtualbox-modules-4.3.14-2 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs == Top five in signoffs in last 24 hours == 1. lcarlier - 2 signoffs

1 0

[aur-general] Lost Password
by yermandu 25 Jul '14

25 Jul '14

I lost my password in aur the passreset doesnt send email with link -- daniel yermandu [at] gmail dot com * ,--./,-. / # \ | | \ / `._,._,'*

2 3

Re: [aur-general] Compiz package naming
by Rob McCathie 25 Jul '14

25 Jul '14

Hi Charles :) > Message: 6 > Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 10:51:15 +0100 > From: Charles Bos <charlesbos1(a)gmail.com> > To: "Discussion about the Arch User Repository (AUR)" > <aur-general(a)archlinux.org> > Subject: Re: [aur-general] Compiz package naming > Message-ID: > <CAJr1w13nX3riq=+BoozWuviDA-1gRHcZa-D0RPHvZTdvXg=rsQ(a)mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > This change sounds sensible to me. I would be more than happy to turn > compiz-core-bzr back into compiz-bzr. > > Regarding compiz.org, that has been dead for a long time and I wouldn't > consider it an authority on Compiz information. For instance: on the front > page of wiki.compiz.org it states that 0.8.8 is the latest 0.8 release and > 0.9.8 is the latest 0.9 release when it is actually 0.8.9 and 0.9.11 > respectively. > > I wouldn't regard the 0.9.x series is not a fork. It's a development branch > which should theoretically be released as Compiz 0.10 or Compiz 1.0 in the > same way that GNOME 3.13 is a development branch that will be released as > 3.14 in the future. I think it's a struggle to even refer to it as a development branch these days. It's been used in multiple releases of the (supposedly) enterprise-grade Ubuntu LTS releases. Doesn't sound like the sort of distribution release that "development branch" software would be used in. Personally, I view the 0.9 series as the current release branch. > Regarding the renaming of the 0.8 packages. Perhaps they could be called > compiz0.8 instead of compiz-legacy. This sometimes happens in the official > repos. For instance: there's wxgtk (which is at version 3) and wxgtk2.8. > Just a thought. Sure, compiz-legacy, compiz0.8, either works. -- Regards, Rob McCathie

1 0

Re: [aur-general] Compiz package naming
by Rob McCathie 25 Jul '14

25 Jul '14

>> 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 > >If that's true, why haven't the developers updated the site to reflect >that? I think it's fairly obvious that no one is actually maintaining that site. >The lead developer seems to consider the project dead, and the >site reflects that view. Canonical is doing temporary maintenance of >their fork until they move to Mir. I wouldn't call the 0.9 series "Canonical's fork". Canonical hired lead Compiz developer, Sam Spilsbury, to continue work on Compiz. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compiz#Compiz_0.9_series I don't see how the current launchpad hosted Compiz could be considered anything other than the true successor. Also, to ensure another common misconception doesn't crop up - The Compiz 0.9 gets further patched beyond what is on launchpad.net/compiz by Canonical for Unity. The code you get if you source directly from launchpad.net/compiz is not Unity or Ubuntu specific. I can say this with much confidence, since i've been using it for months now combined with Xfce (as a xfwm4 replacement) on Arch and Manjaro systems. -- Regards, Rob McCathie

2 2

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

25 Jul '14

=== Signoff report for [community-testing] === https://www.archlinux.org/packages/signoffs/ There are currently: * 6 new packages in last 24 hours * 0 known bad packages * 0 packages not accepting signoffs * 0 fully signed off packages * 25 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 (6 total) == * lz4-120-1 (i686) * mythplugins-1:0.27.3-1 (i686) * mythtv-1:0.27.3-1 (i686) * lz4-120-1 (x86_64) * mythplugins-1:0.27.3-1 (x86_64) * mythtv-1:0.27.3-1 (x86_64) == Incomplete signoffs for [community] (25 total) == * acpi_call-1.1.0-9 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * bbswitch-0.8-13 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * lz4-120-1 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * mpv-0.4.1-2 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * mythplugins-1:0.27.3-1 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * mythtv-1:0.27.3-1 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * r8168-8.038.00-8 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * radvd-2.1-1 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * rt3562sta-2.4.1.1_r1-7 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * tp_smapi-0.41-51 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * vhba-module-20140629-4 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * virtualbox-4.3.14-2 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * virtualbox-modules-4.3.14-2 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * acpi_call-1.1.0-9 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * bbswitch-0.8-13 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * lz4-120-1 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * mpv-0.4.1-2 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * mythplugins-1:0.27.3-1 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * mythtv-1:0.27.3-1 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * r8168-8.038.00-8 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * radvd-2.1-1 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * tp_smapi-0.41-51 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * vhba-module-20140629-4 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * virtualbox-4.3.14-2 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * virtualbox-modules-4.3.14-2 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs == Top five in signoffs in last 24 hours == 1. bisson - 4 signoffs 2. dreisner - 2 signoffs 3. anatolik - 1 signoffs

1 0

[aur-general] deletion request
by Jose Riha 24 Jul '14

24 Jul '14

hello, please remove flac2mp3 from aur as it has been replaced by flac2mp3-git. thank you, jose

2 1

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

24 Jul '14

=== Signoff report for [community-testing] === https://www.archlinux.org/packages/signoffs/ There are currently: * 3 new packages in last 24 hours * 0 known bad packages * 0 packages not accepting signoffs * 0 fully signed off packages * 20 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 (3 total) == * mpv-0.4.1-2 (i686) * docker-1:1.1.1-2 (x86_64) * mpv-0.4.1-2 (x86_64) == Incomplete signoffs for [community] (20 total) == * acpi_call-1.1.0-9 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * bbswitch-0.8-13 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * mpv-0.4.1-2 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * r8168-8.038.00-8 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * radvd-2.1-1 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * rt3562sta-2.4.1.1_r1-7 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * tp_smapi-0.41-51 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * vhba-module-20140629-4 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * virtualbox-4.3.14-2 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * virtualbox-modules-4.3.14-2 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * acpi_call-1.1.0-9 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * bbswitch-0.8-13 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * docker-1:1.1.1-2 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * mpv-0.4.1-2 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * r8168-8.038.00-8 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * radvd-2.1-1 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * tp_smapi-0.41-51 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * vhba-module-20140629-4 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * virtualbox-4.3.14-2 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * virtualbox-modules-4.3.14-2 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs == Top five in signoffs in last 24 hours == 1. thestinger - 5 signoffs 2. bpiotrowski - 4 signoffs 3. fyan - 2 signoffs

1 0