- Aur-general - lists.archlinux.org

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

12 Jul '15

=== Signoff report for [community-testing] === https://www.archlinux.org/packages/signoffs/ There are currently: * 4 new packages in last 24 hours * 0 known bad packages * 0 packages not accepting signoffs * 0 fully signed off packages * 23 packages missing signoffs * 2 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 (4 total) == * kadu-2.1-2 (i686) * vagrant-1.7.3-1 (i686) * kadu-2.1-2 (x86_64) * vagrant-1.7.3-1 (x86_64) == Incomplete signoffs for [community] (23 total) == * salt-2015.5.3-1 (any) 0/2 signoffs * acpi_call-1.1.0-32 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * bbswitch-0.8-34 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * fcitx-qt5-1.0.3-1 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * kadu-2.1-2 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * lightdm-1:1.14.0-4 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * r8168-8.040.00-4 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * rt3562sta-2.4.1.1_r2-10 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * tp_smapi-0.41-71 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * vagrant-1.7.3-1 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * vhba-module-20140928-15 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * virtualbox-modules-4.3.28-4 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * acpi_call-1.1.0-32 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * bbswitch-0.8-34 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * fcitx-qt5-1.0.3-1 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * kadu-2.1-2 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * lightdm-1:1.14.0-4 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * r8168-8.040.00-4 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * rt3562sta-2.4.1.1_r2-10 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * tp_smapi-0.41-71 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * vagrant-1.7.3-1 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * vhba-module-20140928-15 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * virtualbox-modules-4.3.28-4 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs == All packages in [community-testing] for more than 14 days (2 total) == * lightdm-1:1.14.0-4 (i686), since 2015-06-26 * lightdm-1:1.14.0-4 (x86_64), since 2015-06-26 == Top five in signoffs in last 24 hours ==

1 0

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

11 Jul '15

=== Signoff report for [community-testing] === https://www.archlinux.org/packages/signoffs/ There are currently: * 16 new packages in last 24 hours * 0 known bad packages * 0 packages not accepting signoffs * 0 fully signed off packages * 19 packages missing signoffs * 2 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 (16 total) == * acpi_call-1.1.0-32 (i686) * bbswitch-0.8-34 (i686) * fcitx-qt5-1.0.3-1 (i686) * r8168-8.040.00-4 (i686) * rt3562sta-2.4.1.1_r2-10 (i686) * tp_smapi-0.41-71 (i686) * vhba-module-20140928-15 (i686) * virtualbox-modules-4.3.28-4 (i686) * acpi_call-1.1.0-32 (x86_64) * bbswitch-0.8-34 (x86_64) * fcitx-qt5-1.0.3-1 (x86_64) * r8168-8.040.00-4 (x86_64) * rt3562sta-2.4.1.1_r2-10 (x86_64) * tp_smapi-0.41-71 (x86_64) * vhba-module-20140928-15 (x86_64) * virtualbox-modules-4.3.28-4 (x86_64) == Incomplete signoffs for [community] (19 total) == * salt-2015.5.3-1 (any) 0/2 signoffs * acpi_call-1.1.0-32 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * bbswitch-0.8-34 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * fcitx-qt5-1.0.3-1 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * lightdm-1:1.14.0-4 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * r8168-8.040.00-4 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * rt3562sta-2.4.1.1_r2-10 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * tp_smapi-0.41-71 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * vhba-module-20140928-15 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * virtualbox-modules-4.3.28-4 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * acpi_call-1.1.0-32 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * bbswitch-0.8-34 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * fcitx-qt5-1.0.3-1 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * lightdm-1:1.14.0-4 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * r8168-8.040.00-4 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * rt3562sta-2.4.1.1_r2-10 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * tp_smapi-0.41-71 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * vhba-module-20140928-15 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * virtualbox-modules-4.3.28-4 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs == All packages in [community-testing] for more than 14 days (2 total) == * lightdm-1:1.14.0-4 (i686), since 2015-06-26 * lightdm-1:1.14.0-4 (x86_64), since 2015-06-26 == Top five in signoffs in last 24 hours == 1. djgera - 9 signoffs

1 0

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

10 Jul '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 * 17 packages missing signoffs * 2 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) == * salt-2015.5.3-1 (any) 0/2 signoffs * acpi_call-1.1.0-31 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * bbswitch-0.8-33 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * lightdm-1:1.14.0-4 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * r8168-8.040.00-3 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * rt3562sta-2.4.1.1_r2-9 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * tp_smapi-0.41-70 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * vhba-module-20140928-14 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * virtualbox-modules-4.3.28-3 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * acpi_call-1.1.0-31 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * bbswitch-0.8-33 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * lightdm-1:1.14.0-4 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * r8168-8.040.00-3 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * rt3562sta-2.4.1.1_r2-9 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * tp_smapi-0.41-70 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * vhba-module-20140928-14 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * virtualbox-modules-4.3.28-3 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs == All packages in [community-testing] for more than 14 days (2 total) == * lightdm-1:1.14.0-4 (i686), since 2015-06-26 * lightdm-1:1.14.0-4 (x86_64), since 2015-06-26 == Top five in signoffs in last 24 hours == 1. bisson - 6 signoffs 2. foutrelis - 3 signoffs 3. seblu - 1 signoffs

1 0

[aur-general] perl: symbol lookup error: Util.so: undefined symbol: Perl_xs_apiversion_bootcheck
by Ralf Mardorf 10 Jul '15

10 Jul '15

Hi, has somebody an idea what to do? I added a comment to https://aur4.archlinux.org/packages/shutter-bzr/ : "I had 1272-3 from AUR 3 installed and it worked, but seemingly related to pearl upgrades it doesn't work anymore. After rebuilding from AUR 3 first and then from AUR 4 shutter still doesn't run. $ shutter /usr/bin/perl: symbol lookup error: /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/auto/List/Util/Util.so: undefined symbol: Perl_xs_apiversion_bootcheck Rebuilding perl-scalar-list-utils from AUR 3 git fails. The PKGBUILD isn't provided by AUR 3, AUR 4 or the official repositories. $ makepkg -s --skipchecksums ==> Making package: perl-scalar-list-utils 1.38-3 (Thu Jul 9 18:02:07 CEST 2015) ==> Extracting sources... -> Extracting Scalar-List-Utils-1.38.tar.gz with bsdtar ==> Starting build()... Checking if your kit is complete... /usr/bin/perl: symbol lookup error: /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/auto/List/Util/Util.so: undefined symbol: Perl_xs_apiversion_bootcheck ==> ERROR: A failure occurred in build(). Aborting... $ pacman -Qo /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/auto/List/Util/Util.so /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/auto/List/Util/Util.so is owned by perl-scalar-list-utils 1.38-2" This seems to be an issue for several apps, but the only recommendation I found by a web research was the hint to downgrade pearl packages. Regards, Ralf

4 7

[aur-general] Adopt orphan packages on AUR 4 now!
by Lukas Fleischer 09 Jul '15

09 Jul '15

Hi, it is July 8th (anywhere on earth) now, so I just disowned all packages that were not uploaded to aur4.archlinux.org yet. Feel free to adopt and resubmit your favorite packages! Regards, Lukas

7 8

[aur-general] Merge request braid -> braid-hib
by Sam S. 09 Jul '15

09 Jul '15

I uploaded my previous AUR package "braid" to AUR4 under the new name "braid-hib". Can comments and votes be merged please?

2 2

[aur-general] Signoff report for [community-testing]
by Arch Website Notification 09 Jul '15

09 Jul '15

=== 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 * 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.) == New packages in [community-testing] in last 24 hours (2 total) == * rethinkdb-2.0.4-1 (i686) * rethinkdb-2.0.4-1 (x86_64) == Incomplete signoffs for [community] (19 total) == * salt-2015.5.3-1 (any) 0/2 signoffs * acpi_call-1.1.0-31 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * bbswitch-0.8-33 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * lightdm-1:1.14.0-4 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * r8168-8.040.00-3 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * rethinkdb-2.0.4-1 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * rt3562sta-2.4.1.1_r2-9 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * tp_smapi-0.41-70 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * vhba-module-20140928-14 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * virtualbox-modules-4.3.28-3 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * acpi_call-1.1.0-31 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * bbswitch-0.8-33 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * lightdm-1:1.14.0-4 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * r8168-8.040.00-3 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * rethinkdb-2.0.4-1 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * rt3562sta-2.4.1.1_r2-9 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * tp_smapi-0.41-70 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * vhba-module-20140928-14 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * virtualbox-modules-4.3.28-3 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs == Top five in signoffs in last 24 hours == 1. eworm - 2 signoffs

1 0

[aur-general] Blacklist removal request for python2-hglib
by Erik Johnson 09 Jul '15

09 Jul '15

I am the owner of python2-hglib, and I would like to submit a PKGBUILD that builds both python2 and python3 packages, but cannot due to the fact that python2-hglib is being rejected by the git hook on aur4.archlinux.org. I already submitted this PKGBUILD, but had messed up the naming of the package, and only noticed this blacklist issue when I tried to correct the issue. Can I get the blacklist removed so that I can submit my corrected PKGBUILD providing both python-hglib and python2-hglib? -- -Erik "For me, it is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." -- Carl Sagan

2 4

[aur-general] Merge request for python{,2}-hglib
by Erik Johnson 09 Jul '15

09 Jul '15

I am the owner of both on aur4, and I want to submit both under a single PKGBUILD with python-hglib as a pkgbase.

1 1

[aur-general] [AUR4] Single binary package for different architectures
by Rudy Matela 08 Jul '15

08 Jul '15

Hello, I am importing a PKGBUILD for something that has only a binary release. More specifically, a binary release for i686 and another for x86_64. In the old AUR, I was packaging it using an if clause to choose which release to download depending on the architecture -- this way, I can have a single package for both architectures. More or less like this: if [ ${CARCH} = 'x86_64' ]; then source=("http://example.com/release-${pkgver}-x86_64.tar.gz") md5sums=('00112233445566778899aabbccddeeff') else source=("http://example.com/release-${pkgver}-i386.tar.gz") md5sums=('ffeeddccbbaa99887766554433221100') fi Running mksrcinfo fails with the error: /path/PKGBUILD: line XX: [: =: unary operator expected "line XX" points to the line containing the if. Are there some guildelines for packaging something like this? How could I make mksrcinfo work? Is there any way to generate the .SRCINFO file manually to conform to the dual-binary release described above? (or... should I not be doing this at all?) -- Rudy

16 37

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

08 Jul '15

=== Signoff report for [community-testing] === https://www.archlinux.org/packages/signoffs/ There are currently: * 1 new package in last 24 hours * 0 known bad packages * 0 packages not accepting signoffs * 0 fully signed off packages * 17 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 (1 total) == * salt-2015.5.3-1 (any) == Incomplete signoffs for [community] (17 total) == * salt-2015.5.3-1 (any) 0/2 signoffs * acpi_call-1.1.0-31 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * bbswitch-0.8-33 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * lightdm-1:1.14.0-4 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * r8168-8.040.00-3 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * rt3562sta-2.4.1.1_r2-9 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * tp_smapi-0.41-70 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * vhba-module-20140928-14 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * virtualbox-modules-4.3.28-3 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * acpi_call-1.1.0-31 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * bbswitch-0.8-33 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * lightdm-1:1.14.0-4 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * r8168-8.040.00-3 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * rt3562sta-2.4.1.1_r2-9 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * tp_smapi-0.41-70 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * vhba-module-20140928-14 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * virtualbox-modules-4.3.28-3 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs == Top five in signoffs in last 24 hours ==

1 0

[aur-general] PKGBUILD that downloads ilegal content
by Hugo Osvaldo Barrera 07 Jul '15

07 Jul '15

There's a PKGBUILD[1] on the AUR that downloads a binary that is illegal to distribute (due to licensing, it may only be distributed in source form). IMHO, it's a bit of a grey area if the PKGBUILD is legal or not (I believe it is not in some jurisdictions), but anyone running it is receiving illegal content, so I don't think we should keep it around. I put up a deletion request[2] for this, and the response was "The AUR does not distribute binaries.". While this is true, it does distribute the PKGBUILD for downloading the ilegal binary. This is not a case of "the package can be used to do something possibly illegal", this is a case of "this script was tailored exclusively and with the sole objective of distributing something illegal, and can only be used for that". [1]: https://aur4.archlinux.org/pkgbase/telegram-desktop/ [2]: https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-requests/2015-July/007698.html -- Hugo Osvaldo Barrera

5 8

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

07 Jul '15

=== 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 * 18 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) == * wireshark-1.12.6-2 (i686) * wireshark-1.12.6-2 (x86_64) == Incomplete signoffs for [community] (18 total) == * acpi_call-1.1.0-31 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * bbswitch-0.8-33 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * lightdm-1:1.14.0-4 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * r8168-8.040.00-3 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * rt3562sta-2.4.1.1_r2-9 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * tp_smapi-0.41-70 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * vhba-module-20140928-14 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * virtualbox-modules-4.3.28-3 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * wireshark-1.12.6-2 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * acpi_call-1.1.0-31 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * bbswitch-0.8-33 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * lightdm-1:1.14.0-4 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * r8168-8.040.00-3 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * rt3562sta-2.4.1.1_r2-9 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * tp_smapi-0.41-70 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * vhba-module-20140928-14 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * virtualbox-modules-4.3.28-3 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * wireshark-1.12.6-2 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs == Top five in signoffs in last 24 hours == 1. bisson - 6 signoffs

1 0

[aur-general] password cracker program in AUR
by LoneVVolf 06 Jul '15

06 Jul '15

Hi, While browsing AUR4 orphaned pacakges, i noticed cudahashcat with description "Worlds fastest password cracker with dictionary mutation engine" . There are atleast 2 more packages from the same upstream, http://hashcat.net/oclhashcat/ . I realise it and can be useful for people that forgot their own password, there are many illegal/immoral uses for it. Should we allow such programs in AUR ? LVV

8 10

[aur-general] Signoff report for [community-testing]
by Arch Website Notification 06 Jul '15

06 Jul '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 * 17 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] (17 total) == * acpi_call-1.1.0-31 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * bbswitch-0.8-33 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * lightdm-1:1.14.0-4 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * r8168-8.040.00-3 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * rt3562sta-2.4.1.1_r2-9 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * tp_smapi-0.41-70 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * vhba-module-20140928-14 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * virtualbox-modules-4.3.28-3 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * acpi_call-1.1.0-31 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * bbswitch-0.8-33 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * lightdm-1:1.14.0-4 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * r8168-8.040.00-3 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * rt3562sta-2.4.1.1_r2-9 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * tp_smapi-0.41-70 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * vhba-module-20140928-14 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * virtualbox-modules-4.3.28-3 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * wireshark-1.12.6-1 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs == Top five in signoffs in last 24 hours ==

1 0

[aur-general] AUR 4 package search doesn't work
by Ralf Mardorf 05 Jul '15

05 Jul '15

Hi, when using the AUR 4 search machine for "Name, Description" or "Name" and "Out of Date All", the keyword "lightscribe" does find "4l", but it doesn't find "lightscribe" and "lightscribe-labeler". https://aur4.archlinux.org/packages/?O=0&K=lightscribe https://aur4.archlinux.org/packages/?O=0&SeB=nd&K=lightscribe&outdated=&SB=… Regards, Ralf Off-topic PS: Assumed for AUR 3 PKGBUILDs were available for 32-bit and 64-bit architecture, there were requests to make those split PKGBUILDs one for both architectures, does it make sense to provide the PKGBUILDs for AUR 4 with dropped 64-bit architecture and to provide 32-bit architecture only? We could argue that it's better somebody maintains 32-bit PKGBUILDs only, instead of completely dropping software, OTOH Arch claims to support 32-bit and 64-bit architecture and it looks like a step backwards to provide 32-bit architecture and to drop the newer 64-bit architecture. https://aur4.archlinux.org/packages/lightscribe/ https://aur4.archlinux.org/packages/lightscribe-labeler/ https://aur4.archlinux.org/packages/4l/

3 5

[aur-general] pkgver update not reflected
by brent timothy saner 05 Jul '15

05 Jul '15

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 On one of my packages [0], I've updated the PKGBUILD with pkgver 1.4.20. Previous release was 1.4.18. However, AUR(4) still seems to think the package version is 1.4.18, and even seems to apply it to when I use the ${pkgver} variable inline (e.g. for the sources). What gives? Is anyone else experiencing this? [0] https://aur4.archlinux.org/packages/freeswitch/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJVmYoSAAoJEIwATC+TSB9rHP8P/idCfJMgcgdLSVvFKYKktXti 9oUyuEtsdmsdVbr4NO5FIsaox9moQ8Ee6Q1vEe3FIhiaNiWx4LoLmENHeZPS6jcG 3M7Y725xsd0KLD2dhWwIVlzyuxkiZqM1u/6FbceHoTDgCNvRQLPKr2pDHQXpA6l9 YYE8mBgwcLdsIXA3Emt1/1suvah6IaLrJ1d0tMJasHo7VzhRh/+IB4oJ7SrNBj5S HUnbaaORpMBh+DNh9L7xTCjff1rbTwB0T38PtS5yZkqT7sFksBMam84vGjX3l1+h Cx4kDK7cWcfTS6Dhba9NJ37iNnMwRTD+AQqjg1c0ApYC3XI+vfLQXcfgC1G9SBdh zzHMt/0oNNA2/Wy4T6fxkcZeUTANSab2QM5/iLHLl1ayHVxR0pr+2JVPeo971I+0 RVkBj73C9ByzDwvMASoXMwhApl3GrOX1QfKhd8fDfRV/QjTpVN3fOIJbaHHa1yIA pg/OHYQUnqh85rvAix7rJAj5K+St92f0eEbFjPlxJMcI+FF+raNrbiY0SG4obGx8 uha7H8HVOqU8x2p05ieaJPDJxewS+Zi1iCaBfjBPTSJszG3xzGaj0KROqKVbmBC+ z9+V23Dq72OEgmtHG/eQrzyOG25Sm/tO8NXSfKl/v82tZAfbAAnsssbm8/BPe0JW 0nId7tKXA5FkFY3zmtyh =t1hi -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

4 5

[aur-general] Signoff report for [community-testing]
by Arch Website Notification 05 Jul '15

05 Jul '15

=== Signoff report for [community-testing] === https://www.archlinux.org/packages/signoffs/ There are currently: * 14 new packages in last 24 hours * 0 known bad packages * 0 packages not accepting signoffs * 0 fully signed off packages * 17 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 (14 total) == * acpi_call-1.1.0-31 (i686) * bbswitch-0.8-33 (i686) * r8168-8.040.00-3 (i686) * rt3562sta-2.4.1.1_r2-9 (i686) * tp_smapi-0.41-70 (i686) * vhba-module-20140928-14 (i686) * virtualbox-modules-4.3.28-3 (i686) * acpi_call-1.1.0-31 (x86_64) * bbswitch-0.8-33 (x86_64) * r8168-8.040.00-3 (x86_64) * rt3562sta-2.4.1.1_r2-9 (x86_64) * tp_smapi-0.41-70 (x86_64) * vhba-module-20140928-14 (x86_64) * virtualbox-modules-4.3.28-3 (x86_64) == Incomplete signoffs for [community] (17 total) == * acpi_call-1.1.0-31 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * bbswitch-0.8-33 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * lightdm-1:1.14.0-4 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * r8168-8.040.00-3 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * rt3562sta-2.4.1.1_r2-9 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * tp_smapi-0.41-70 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * vhba-module-20140928-14 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * virtualbox-modules-4.3.28-3 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * acpi_call-1.1.0-31 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * bbswitch-0.8-33 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * lightdm-1:1.14.0-4 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * r8168-8.040.00-3 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * rt3562sta-2.4.1.1_r2-9 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * tp_smapi-0.41-70 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * vhba-module-20140928-14 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * virtualbox-modules-4.3.28-3 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * wireshark-1.12.6-1 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs == Top five in signoffs in last 24 hours == 1. foutrelis - 2 signoffs 2. bisson - 2 signoffs

1 0

[aur-general] Signoff report for [community-testing]
by Arch Website Notification 04 Jul '15

04 Jul '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 * 3 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] (3 total) == * lightdm-1:1.14.0-4 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * lightdm-1:1.14.0-4 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * wireshark-1.12.6-1 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs == Top five in signoffs in last 24 hours == 1. anatolik - 1 signoffs

1 0

[aur-general] Signoff report for [community-testing]
by Arch Website Notification 03 Jul '15

03 Jul '15

=== Signoff report for [community-testing] === https://www.archlinux.org/packages/signoffs/ There are currently: * 1 new package in last 24 hours * 0 known bad packages * 0 packages not accepting signoffs * 0 fully signed off packages * 3 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 (1 total) == * wireshark-1.12.6-1 (x86_64) == Incomplete signoffs for [community] (3 total) == * lightdm-1:1.14.0-4 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * lightdm-1:1.14.0-4 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * wireshark-1.12.6-1 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs == Top five in signoffs in last 24 hours ==

1 0

[aur-general] Cannot log in to AUR, probably due to forgotten username
by Roey Darwish Dror 02 Jul '15

02 Jul '15

Although I just reset my password in AUR I still cannot log in using the new password. IIRC my username is r-darwish, but I might have forgotten it.

2 1

[aur-general] Signoff report for [community-testing]
by Arch Website Notification 02 Jul '15

02 Jul '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 * 2 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] (2 total) == * lightdm-1:1.14.0-4 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * lightdm-1:1.14.0-4 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs == Top five in signoffs in last 24 hours == 1. eworm - 2 signoffs 2. bisson - 2 signoffs 3. foutrelis - 1 signoffs 4. anatolik - 1 signoffs

1 0

[aur-general] Signoff report for [community-testing]
by Arch Website Notification 01 Jul '15

01 Jul '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 * 2 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] (2 total) == * lightdm-1:1.14.0-4 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * lightdm-1:1.14.0-4 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs == Top five in signoffs in last 24 hours == 1. foutrelis - 2 signoffs 2. bisson - 2 signoffs 3. eworm - 1 signoffs 4. lcarlier - 1 signoffs

1 0

[aur-general] Thinking about repackaging... Should I?
by Giovanni Santini 30 Jun '15

30 Jun '15

Hello everybody, I'm actually the maintainer of the gcc44-multilib package, that can be found here: https://aur4.archlinux.org/packages/gcc44-multilib/ After taking a look at the gcc49-multilib package, I had thoughts about rewriting the PKGBUILD or not. How could I choose about this? I just want to know what do you think about this specific package, but also in general (if in the future I'll have the same problem, what should I do?). -- Giovanni Santini My blog: http://giovannisantini.tk My code: https://github.com/ItachiSan My GPG: 2FADEBF5

2 1

[aur-general] Signoff report for [community-testing]
by Arch Website Notification 30 Jun '15

30 Jun '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 * 2 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] (2 total) == * lightdm-1:1.14.0-4 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * lightdm-1:1.14.0-4 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs == Top five in signoffs in last 24 hours ==

1 0