I am the current maintainer of the AUR package
ttf-google-webfonts-hg, 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 that
essentially supply the same files, and all four packages conflict with
each other. Around August of 2012, the package named
ttf-google-webfonts was orphaned, and user w0ng created a GitHub
repository that mirrors the Mercurial repository 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
As you can see in the comments for ttf-google-webfonts, 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out-of-date or having invalid checksums.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 that
clones w0ng's GitHub repo 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 that pulls a tarball from w0ng's
GitHub repo and only installs a small subset of the fonts therein.
Shortly after ttf-google-webfonts 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 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
and ttf-google-webfonts-git be deleted outright, for what should be
obvious reasons. I also propose that ttf-google-webfonts 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 other than one less makedepends.
I apologize for the huge email, but this situation really is a mess.
I would like to apply to become a TU. Lukas Fleischer has kindly accepted
to sponsor my application.
I am currently a PhD student in France, doing research on networking. I
am also involved in several projects, in particular DIY ISPs , the FDN
Federation in France , OpenWRT/LEDE , etc. The common motivation is
to work towards a more open and decentralised Internet.
I have been using Arch Linux on my personal laptops since around 2010.
I think I have never had to reinstall Arch Linux on my main laptop since
then! In the past, I was also running Arch Linux on my servers, but I
since switched to Debian for all my servers.
By the way, I am not very active on the mailing lists, but I read most
threads on aur-general and arch-dev-public.
In the AUR, I maintain 33 packages , of which the most noteworthy are:
- ring: a secure and distributed voice/video/chat communication software
(Ring is the successor of SFLphone, basically using a DHT to find
contacts instead of relying on SIP servers, and tons of other
- coq: a formal proof assistant written in Ocaml
- linux-mptcp: the linux kernel with support for Multipath TCP, from
Université Catholique de Louvain
The other packages I maintain are either dependencies of the above, or
small software tools that I packaged when I needed them. I regularly use
about 2/3 of these packages, but I still try to maintain the other ones.
I mostly want to become a TU to push ring, coq and linux-mptcp to the
[community] binary repository. These packages all take a fairly long time
to build, and additionally the Ring packages are a dependency nightmare.
It is often necessary for users to rebuild all dependencies simultaneously
because of API/ABI changes, and this is impractical and time-consuming
when using the AUR, especially given the number of dependencies.
Regarding linux-mptcp, it is not popular enough at the moment, and there
are few kernel packages in binary repositories. I would wait for the
package to obtain 10 votes (and confirmation that another kernel package
is indeed welcome in the repositories) before pushing it to [community].
As a final note, I am already using the devtools to test-build my AUR
packages in clean chroots on a server. This provides some form of
"continuous integration" of my AUR packages, although it is not completely
satisfying right now.
Don't hesitate if you have any questions, or comments on my AUR packages!
I'm looking forward to have the python library viivakoodi as an
Arch Linux packages. If I am not miss-lead this library does not exist
in the Arch Linux repositories nor in AUR.
I'm building this package to be able to use scripts provided into the
I personally hate the pip thing so I would appreciate to have it
directly as an Arch Linux packages.
I comes with a PKGBUILD that could be found attached to this email or
directly to my personal git repository.
As this is my first PKGBUILD (and contribution) I would appreciate any
criticisms on this.
I came up with the following points by my own:
* I'm not sure that the way I install the LICENSE file in the
package_*() functions is the way it should be done.
* As it is stated into the project README argparse is required
for python 2.6, 3.0 and 3.1. What is the good way to do this into
a PKGBUILD ? I opt to force argparse as dependencies so I am sure
that it should runs for everyone.
* I have decided to introduce my custom variable _pylibname, I hope it
would be okay.
* Upstream does not provide any GPG signature of the tarballs nor
commit signature. I've chosen to provide a detached GPG signature
of the downloaded tarball with my GPG key. For me, its better to
have this link-ability between the package maintainer and the
downloaded tarball than nothing at all.
Do you have comments or anything ?
Thanks for helping me and reviewing.