- Aur-general - lists.archlinux.org

[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