- Aur-general - lists.archlinux.org

[aur-general] Signoff report for [community-testing]
by Arch Website Notification 28 Sep '14

28 Sep '14

=== 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 * 5 packages missing signoffs * 1 package 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] (5 total) == * freevo-1.9.0-14 (any) 0/2 signoffs * gnome-boxes-3.14.0-1 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * weston-1.6.0-1 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * gnome-boxes-3.14.0-1 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * weston-1.6.0-1 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs == All packages in [community-testing] for more than 14 days (1 total) == * freevo-1.9.0-14 (any), since 2014-08-27 == Top five in signoffs in last 24 hours == 1. bisson - 2 signoffs 2. seblu - 1 signoffs

1 0

[aur-general] please remove grass64-rc
by Maciej Sieczka 27 Sep '14

27 Sep '14

Hi, Please remove my package grass64-rc. It is not adding much value. My bad adding it in the 1st place. Maciek -- Maciej Sieczka http://www.sieczka.org

2 2

[aur-general] Signoff report for [community-testing]
by Arch Website Notification 27 Sep '14

27 Sep '14

=== 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 * 12 packages missing signoffs * 1 package 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) == * gnome-boxes-3.14.0-1 (i686) * weston-1.6.0-1 (i686) * gnome-boxes-3.14.0-1 (x86_64) * weston-1.6.0-1 (x86_64) == Incomplete signoffs for [community] (12 total) == * freevo-1.9.0-14 (any) 0/2 signoffs * geogebra-5.0.4.0-1 (any) 1/2 signoffs * gnome-boxes-3.14.0-1 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * gpsdrive-2.11-23 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * qlandkartegt-1.7.7-2 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * viking-1.5.1-2 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * weston-1.6.0-1 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * gnome-boxes-3.14.0-1 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * gpsdrive-2.11-23 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * qlandkartegt-1.7.7-2 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * viking-1.5.1-2 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * weston-1.6.0-1 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs == All packages in [community-testing] for more than 14 days (1 total) == * freevo-1.9.0-14 (any), since 2014-08-27 == Top five in signoffs in last 24 hours == 1. foutrelis - 3 signoffs 2. anatolik - 1 signoffs

1 0

[aur-general] Signoff report for [community-testing]
by Arch Website Notification 26 Sep '14

26 Sep '14

=== 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 * 10 packages missing signoffs * 1 package 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-1.14.1-1 (i686) * rethinkdb-1.14.1-1 (x86_64) == Incomplete signoffs for [community] (10 total) == * freevo-1.9.0-14 (any) 0/2 signoffs * geogebra-5.0.4.0-1 (any) 1/2 signoffs * gpsdrive-2.11-23 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * qlandkartegt-1.7.7-2 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * rethinkdb-1.14.1-1 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * viking-1.5.1-2 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * gpsdrive-2.11-23 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * qlandkartegt-1.7.7-2 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * rethinkdb-1.14.1-1 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * viking-1.5.1-2 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs == All packages in [community-testing] for more than 14 days (1 total) == * freevo-1.9.0-14 (any), since 2014-08-27 == Top five in signoffs in last 24 hours == 1. foutrelis - 8 signoffs 2. bisson - 7 signoffs 3. lcarlier - 7 signoffs 4. fyan - 2 signoffs

1 0

[aur-general] Signoff report for [community-testing]
by Arch Website Notification 25 Sep '14

25 Sep '14

=== 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 * 8 packages missing signoffs * 1 package 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] (8 total) == * freevo-1.9.0-14 (any) 0/2 signoffs * geogebra-5.0.4.0-1 (any) 1/2 signoffs * gpsdrive-2.11-23 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * qlandkartegt-1.7.7-2 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * viking-1.5.1-2 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * gpsdrive-2.11-23 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * qlandkartegt-1.7.7-2 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * viking-1.5.1-2 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs == All packages in [community-testing] for more than 14 days (1 total) == * freevo-1.9.0-14 (any), since 2014-08-27 == Top five in signoffs in last 24 hours == 1. fyan - 4 signoffs 2. dreisner - 1 signoffs

1 0

[aur-general] AUR Best Practice for New Package Upload
by stef204 25 Sep '14

25 Sep '14

Hi, makepkg now seems to build the .pkg.tar.xz archives for pacman to install, naming them as such: masshash-1.0.0-1-any.pkg.tar.xz I have not seen the "any" in the name before. I can see how the 1.0.0 is the version number and the -1 is the release number; fine. Why is there an "any" in the name? What parameter is it referring to and should it even be there? How can I remove this any so the package is called masshash-1.0.0-1.pkg.tar.xz (assuming that is how it should be/is more proper). Just trying to understand the "ins and outs" of making AUR packages. Thanks.

4 7

[aur-general] Inactivity starting 4th August
by Lukas Jirkovsky 24 Sep '14

24 Sep '14

Hey guys! I will be inactive starting Monday 4th August. I will be moving to a different city for a job (yay, for the first time I'm gong to be paid for programming :-)) and I won't have an Internet connection for some time except from the mobile phone. Anyway, from the packaging side most of my packages doesn't require much attention. The only exception may be luxrays/luxrender which often require patching for newer boost and which tends to suffer from compiler bugs a lot. Also, there is one open bugreport for cdrtools (FS#41343), but it seems to be an upstream problem. Lukas

1 1

Re: [aur-general] AUR Best Practice for New Package Upload
by Giovanni Santini 24 Sep '14

24 Sep '14

Also, it can be used for packages which uses python or similar; python has to be 32bit or 64bit, apps written in python has not. In general, packages with an interpreter or a VM needs no architecture specific package, as its dependency is the interpeter/VM, which is arch dependant. > Il 24/set/2014 06:50 Ralf Mardorf <info.mardorf(a)rocketmail.com> ha scritto: > > > > On Wed, 2014-09-24 at 09:28 +0800, Fernando Gilberto Pereira da Silva > > wrote: > > > Since 'any' is the architecture of the package, why isn't there a > > > folder called 'any' in the repo? I can see only 'i686' and 'x86_64' in > > > repo 'core', 'extra' and 'community', and all of the > > > 'any'-architecture packages are put into both 'i686' and 'x86_64' > > > folders. > > > > People might use 32-bit architecture or 64-bit architecture, there isn't > > an "any" architecture. The "any" only refers to the content of a > > package. The content isn't compiled to work on 32-bit or 64-bit > > architecture, e.g. a dash script, so it can be used on both > > architectures, ergo a package that can be used for "any" architecture, > > needs to be put to the 32-bit and to the 64-bit architecture repository. > > A repository for "any" doesn't make sense.

4 4

[aur-general] Signoff report for [community-testing]
by Arch Website Notification 24 Sep '14

24 Sep '14

=== 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 * 8 packages missing signoffs * 1 package 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] (8 total) == * freevo-1.9.0-14 (any) 0/2 signoffs * geogebra-5.0.4.0-1 (any) 1/2 signoffs * gpsdrive-2.11-23 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * qlandkartegt-1.7.7-2 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * viking-1.5.1-2 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * gpsdrive-2.11-23 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * qlandkartegt-1.7.7-2 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * viking-1.5.1-2 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs == All packages in [community-testing] for more than 14 days (1 total) == * freevo-1.9.0-14 (any), since 2014-08-27 == Top five in signoffs in last 24 hours == 1. foutrelis - 2 signoffs 2. lcarlier - 1 signoffs

1 0

[aur-general] Java name guideliness
by Pablo Lezaeta Reyes 24 Sep '14

24 Sep '14

Since the new java-common come to the repo Is now possible have multiple java, but this bring and open another issue, java naming scheme the guy in jre/jdk[1] and jre-devel and jdk-devel refuse to follow a convention non generic name and the other maintaining jre7/jdk7 [2] and jre7-oracle/jdk7-oracle that do the same [3] refuse to accept or merge jre7-oracle into jre7 for the same reason even if the jre-oracle was merged into jre, this is a chaos. Many packages doing the same in different verion having different name conventions and ALL arguin bein correct. There is need to a conventional standar name scheme or this will be worst, instead to be kiss this is sick. There is a name scheme or name convention to follow? [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/jdk/ [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/jdk7/ [3] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/jdk7-oracle/ There is also a jdk5-compat. Also mergins as ben posponed until name convention come. -- *Pablo Lezaeta*

7 12