January 2015 - Aur-general - lists.archlinux.org

[aur-general] Signoff report for [community-testing]
by Arch Website Notification 12 Jan '15

12 Jan '15

=== 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 * 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] (17 total) == * eric-6.0.0-1 (any) 1/2 signoffs * eric-i18n-6.0.0-1 (any) 1/2 signoffs * freevo-1.9.0-14 (any) 0/2 signoffs * acpi_call-1.1.0-18 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * bbswitch-0.8-22 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * r8168-8.039.00-6 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * rt3562sta-2.4.1.1_r1-16 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * tp_smapi-0.41-59 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * vhba-module-20140928-2 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * virtualbox-modules-4.3.20-5 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * acpi_call-1.1.0-18 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * bbswitch-0.8-22 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * r8168-8.039.00-6 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * rt3562sta-2.4.1.1_r1-16 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * tp_smapi-0.41-59 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * vhba-module-20140928-2 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * virtualbox-modules-4.3.20-5 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs == Incomplete signoffs for [unknown] (2 total) == * qscintilla-qt5-2.8.4-2 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * qscintilla-qt5-2.8.4-2 (x86_64) 1/2 signoffs == All packages in [community-testing] for more than 14 days (3 total) == * freevo-1.9.0-14 (any), since 2014-08-27 * r8168-8.039.00-6 (i686), since 2014-12-17 * r8168-8.039.00-6 (x86_64), since 2014-12-17 == Top five in signoffs in last 24 hours == 1. bpiotrowski - 3 signoffs

1 0

[aur-general] KDE Frameworks 5 packages naming
by Evgeniy Alekseev 12 Jan '15

12 Jan '15

Hi, Is there a recommended way to naming KF5 additional components (like applets or themes) in AUR? We have a paper [1] which describes compnent naming for KDE4, but haven't one for KF5. For example atm we have applet "plasma-nm" [2] so should applet be named as "plasma-appletname"? I suppose they should be named as "kf5plasma-applet- appletname" on the analogy of KDE4 components. 1. https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/KDE_package_guidelines 2. https://www.archlinux.org/packages/?q=plasma-nm -- Sincerely yours, Evgeniy Alekseev e-mail: darkarcanis(a)mail.ru ICQ: 407-398-235 Jabber: arcanis(a)jabber.ru

3 2

[aur-general] lib32-bluez & lib32-bluez4
by Que Quotion 11 Jan '15

11 Jan '15

I've submitted a new lib32-bluez package (bluez5 stack) to the AUR. bluez5 is a non-trival upgrade, so in case anyone depends on it, I resubmitted the original as lib32-bluez4.

1 0

[aur-general] Signoff report for [community-testing]
by Arch Website Notification 11 Jan '15

11 Jan '15

=== 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 * 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] (17 total) == * eric-6.0.0-1 (any) 1/2 signoffs * eric-i18n-6.0.0-1 (any) 1/2 signoffs * freevo-1.9.0-14 (any) 0/2 signoffs * acpi_call-1.1.0-18 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * bbswitch-0.8-22 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * r8168-8.039.00-6 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * rt3562sta-2.4.1.1_r1-16 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * tp_smapi-0.41-59 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * vhba-module-20140928-2 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * virtualbox-modules-4.3.20-5 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * acpi_call-1.1.0-18 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * bbswitch-0.8-22 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * r8168-8.039.00-6 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * rt3562sta-2.4.1.1_r1-16 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * tp_smapi-0.41-59 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * vhba-module-20140928-2 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * virtualbox-modules-4.3.20-5 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs == Incomplete signoffs for [unknown] (2 total) == * qscintilla-qt5-2.8.4-2 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * qscintilla-qt5-2.8.4-2 (x86_64) 1/2 signoffs == All packages in [community-testing] for more than 14 days (3 total) == * freevo-1.9.0-14 (any), since 2014-08-27 * r8168-8.039.00-6 (i686), since 2014-12-17 * r8168-8.039.00-6 (x86_64), since 2014-12-17 == Top five in signoffs in last 24 hours == 1. djgera - 3 signoffs

1 0

[aur-general] Signoff report for [community-testing]
by Arch Website Notification 10 Jan '15

10 Jan '15

=== Signoff report for [community-testing] === https://www.archlinux.org/packages/signoffs/ There are currently: * 12 new packages in last 24 hours * 0 known bad packages * 0 packages not accepting signoffs * 0 fully signed off packages * 19 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 (12 total) == * acpi_call-1.1.0-18 (i686) * bbswitch-0.8-22 (i686) * rt3562sta-2.4.1.1_r1-16 (i686) * tp_smapi-0.41-59 (i686) * vhba-module-20140928-2 (i686) * virtualbox-modules-4.3.20-5 (i686) * acpi_call-1.1.0-18 (x86_64) * bbswitch-0.8-22 (x86_64) * rt3562sta-2.4.1.1_r1-16 (x86_64) * tp_smapi-0.41-59 (x86_64) * vhba-module-20140928-2 (x86_64) * virtualbox-modules-4.3.20-5 (x86_64) == Incomplete signoffs for [community] (17 total) == * eric-6.0.0-1 (any) 1/2 signoffs * eric-i18n-6.0.0-1 (any) 1/2 signoffs * freevo-1.9.0-14 (any) 0/2 signoffs * acpi_call-1.1.0-18 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * bbswitch-0.8-22 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * r8168-8.039.00-6 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * rt3562sta-2.4.1.1_r1-16 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * tp_smapi-0.41-59 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * vhba-module-20140928-2 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * virtualbox-modules-4.3.20-5 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * acpi_call-1.1.0-18 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * bbswitch-0.8-22 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * r8168-8.039.00-6 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * rt3562sta-2.4.1.1_r1-16 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * tp_smapi-0.41-59 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * vhba-module-20140928-2 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * virtualbox-modules-4.3.20-5 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs == Incomplete signoffs for [unknown] (2 total) == * qscintilla-qt5-2.8.4-2 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * qscintilla-qt5-2.8.4-2 (x86_64) 1/2 signoffs == All packages in [community-testing] for more than 14 days (3 total) == * freevo-1.9.0-14 (any), since 2014-08-27 * r8168-8.039.00-6 (i686), since 2014-12-17 * r8168-8.039.00-6 (x86_64), since 2014-12-17 == Top five in signoffs in last 24 hours == 1. allan - 10 signoffs 2. foutrelis - 7 signoffs 3. pierre - 1 signoffs

1 0

[aur-general] Compiz package naming
by Rob McCathie 09 Jan '15

09 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 09 Jan '15

09 Jan '15

=== 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 * 21 packages missing signoffs * 15 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) == * eric-6.0.0-1 (any) 1/2 signoffs * eric-i18n-6.0.0-1 (any) 1/2 signoffs * freevo-1.9.0-14 (any) 0/2 signoffs * acpi_call-1.1.0-17 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * bbswitch-0.8-21 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * python-h5py-2.4.0-1 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * r8168-8.039.00-6 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * rt3562sta-2.4.1.1_r1-15 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * tp_smapi-0.41-58 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * vhba-module-20140928-1 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * virtualbox-modules-4.3.20-4 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * acpi_call-1.1.0-17 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * bbswitch-0.8-21 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * python-h5py-2.4.0-1 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * r8168-8.039.00-6 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * rt3562sta-2.4.1.1_r1-15 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * tp_smapi-0.41-58 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * vhba-module-20140928-1 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * virtualbox-modules-4.3.20-4 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs == Incomplete signoffs for [unknown] (2 total) == * qscintilla-qt5-2.8.4-2 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * qscintilla-qt5-2.8.4-2 (x86_64) 1/2 signoffs == All packages in [community-testing] for more than 14 days (15 total) == * freevo-1.9.0-14 (any), since 2014-08-27 * rt3562sta-2.4.1.1_r1-15 (i686), since 2014-12-17 * rt3562sta-2.4.1.1_r1-15 (x86_64), since 2014-12-17 * acpi_call-1.1.0-17 (i686), since 2014-12-17 * tp_smapi-0.41-58 (i686), since 2014-12-17 * acpi_call-1.1.0-17 (x86_64), since 2014-12-17 * tp_smapi-0.41-58 (x86_64), since 2014-12-17 * virtualbox-modules-4.3.20-4 (i686), since 2014-12-17 * virtualbox-modules-4.3.20-4 (x86_64), since 2014-12-17 * bbswitch-0.8-21 (i686), since 2014-12-17 * r8168-8.039.00-6 (i686), since 2014-12-17 * bbswitch-0.8-21 (x86_64), since 2014-12-17 * r8168-8.039.00-6 (x86_64), since 2014-12-17 * vhba-module-20140928-1 (i686), since 2014-12-21 * vhba-module-20140928-1 (x86_64), since 2014-12-21 == Top five in signoffs in last 24 hours == 1. arodseth - 2 signoffs 2. eric - 2 signoffs

1 0

[aur-general] Signoff report for [community-testing]
by Arch Website Notification 08 Jan '15

08 Jan '15

=== 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 * 21 packages missing signoffs * 15 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) == * eric-6.0.0-1 (any) 1/2 signoffs * eric-i18n-6.0.0-1 (any) 1/2 signoffs * freevo-1.9.0-14 (any) 0/2 signoffs * acpi_call-1.1.0-17 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * bbswitch-0.8-21 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * python-h5py-2.4.0-1 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * r8168-8.039.00-6 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * rt3562sta-2.4.1.1_r1-15 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * tp_smapi-0.41-58 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * vhba-module-20140928-1 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * virtualbox-modules-4.3.20-4 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * acpi_call-1.1.0-17 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * bbswitch-0.8-21 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * python-h5py-2.4.0-1 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * r8168-8.039.00-6 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * rt3562sta-2.4.1.1_r1-15 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * tp_smapi-0.41-58 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * vhba-module-20140928-1 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * virtualbox-modules-4.3.20-4 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs == Incomplete signoffs for [unknown] (2 total) == * qscintilla-qt5-2.8.4-2 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * qscintilla-qt5-2.8.4-2 (x86_64) 1/2 signoffs == All packages in [community-testing] for more than 14 days (15 total) == * freevo-1.9.0-14 (any), since 2014-08-27 * rt3562sta-2.4.1.1_r1-15 (i686), since 2014-12-17 * rt3562sta-2.4.1.1_r1-15 (x86_64), since 2014-12-17 * acpi_call-1.1.0-17 (i686), since 2014-12-17 * tp_smapi-0.41-58 (i686), since 2014-12-17 * acpi_call-1.1.0-17 (x86_64), since 2014-12-17 * tp_smapi-0.41-58 (x86_64), since 2014-12-17 * virtualbox-modules-4.3.20-4 (i686), since 2014-12-17 * virtualbox-modules-4.3.20-4 (x86_64), since 2014-12-17 * bbswitch-0.8-21 (i686), since 2014-12-17 * r8168-8.039.00-6 (i686), since 2014-12-17 * bbswitch-0.8-21 (x86_64), since 2014-12-17 * r8168-8.039.00-6 (x86_64), since 2014-12-17 * vhba-module-20140928-1 (i686), since 2014-12-21 * vhba-module-20140928-1 (x86_64), since 2014-12-21 == Top five in signoffs in last 24 hours == 1. lcarlier - 4 signoffs

1 0

[aur-general] cmake does not (necessarily) honor makepkg.conf
by Que Quotion 07 Jan '15

07 Jan '15

I first came across this problem while working on mmug-qq (a project to create updated and upstream packages for various build dependencies of pcsx2) when I found that some cmake packages would not compile in 32bit with any configuration. It took some digging, but I finally determined that I had indeed exhausted every appropriate option. Something was blocking, ignoring, or removing my settings; preventing packages from being built with the parameters I specified in makepkg.conf and in the PKGBUILDs. The problem is cmake, or more specifically it's various layers of macros. Many cmake packages fail to pass CFLAGS, CXXFLAGS, and LDFLAGS through the various macros to make; some packages ignore these variables entirely. This does not appear to be intentional; I did not find code explicitly stripping away or replacing flags. I found that many of the macros just lost them somewhere; failed to transfer them to cmake variables that would be used later; or inexplicably make with no flags at all for no reason. The only way I could convince cmake packages to always use all of the flags specified in makepkg.conf and/or in the PKGBUILD was to deceive it; to force it to use compilers and a linker with the flags built in. So I created three files: gcc-flagged: /usr/bin/gcc $CFLAGS "$@" g++-flagged: /usr/bin/g++ $CXXFLAGS "$@" ld-flagged: /usr/bin/ld $LDFLAGS "$@" and added this to sources(): {gcc,g++,ld}-flagged and this to the cmake call: -DCMAKE_C_COMPILER="$srcdir"/gcc-flagged \ -DCMAKE_CXX_COMPILER="$srcdir"/g++-flagged \ -DCMAKE_LINKER="$srcdir"/ld-flagged For an example, check out my sdl2-hg-multilib packaging: https://github.com/quequotion/mmug-qq/tree/master/sdl2-hg-multilib

1 0

[aur-general] Signoff report for [community-testing]
by Arch Website Notification 07 Jan '15

07 Jan '15

=== 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 * 21 packages missing signoffs * 15 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) == * eric-6.0.0-1 (any) 1/2 signoffs * eric-i18n-6.0.0-1 (any) 1/2 signoffs * freevo-1.9.0-14 (any) 0/2 signoffs * acpi_call-1.1.0-17 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * bbswitch-0.8-21 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * python-h5py-2.4.0-1 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * r8168-8.039.00-6 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * rt3562sta-2.4.1.1_r1-15 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * tp_smapi-0.41-58 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * vhba-module-20140928-1 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * virtualbox-modules-4.3.20-4 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * acpi_call-1.1.0-17 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * bbswitch-0.8-21 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * python-h5py-2.4.0-1 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * r8168-8.039.00-6 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * rt3562sta-2.4.1.1_r1-15 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * tp_smapi-0.41-58 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * vhba-module-20140928-1 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * virtualbox-modules-4.3.20-4 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs == Incomplete signoffs for [unknown] (2 total) == * qscintilla-qt5-2.8.4-2 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * qscintilla-qt5-2.8.4-2 (x86_64) 1/2 signoffs == All packages in [community-testing] for more than 14 days (15 total) == * freevo-1.9.0-14 (any), since 2014-08-27 * rt3562sta-2.4.1.1_r1-15 (i686), since 2014-12-17 * rt3562sta-2.4.1.1_r1-15 (x86_64), since 2014-12-17 * acpi_call-1.1.0-17 (i686), since 2014-12-17 * tp_smapi-0.41-58 (i686), since 2014-12-17 * acpi_call-1.1.0-17 (x86_64), since 2014-12-17 * tp_smapi-0.41-58 (x86_64), since 2014-12-17 * virtualbox-modules-4.3.20-4 (i686), since 2014-12-17 * virtualbox-modules-4.3.20-4 (x86_64), since 2014-12-17 * bbswitch-0.8-21 (i686), since 2014-12-17 * r8168-8.039.00-6 (i686), since 2014-12-17 * bbswitch-0.8-21 (x86_64), since 2014-12-17 * r8168-8.039.00-6 (x86_64), since 2014-12-17 * vhba-module-20140928-1 (i686), since 2014-12-21 * vhba-module-20140928-1 (x86_64), since 2014-12-21 == Top five in signoffs in last 24 hours == 1. anatolik - 1 signoffs

1 0