- Aur-general - lists.archlinux.org

[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