- Aur-general - lists.archlinux.org

[aur-general] Duplicate package for kiwix-bin
by Karthikeya Viswanath 01 Mar '14

01 Mar '14

kiwix 0.9_alpha7-2 seems to be an outdated version of kiwix-bin 0.9rc2-1 . I'm just a user, noticed this recently. Karthikeya

2 1

[aur-general] Remove strongswan_thermi
by Noel Kuntze 01 Mar '14

01 Mar '14

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 Hello, It would be nice, if you could remove the package "strongswan_thermi" from the AUR. I botched up the package name there. Regards Noel Kuntze -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJTEIwZAAoJEDg5KY9j7GZYdrgP/2rCoI0Sxy2IT2v3OjHFRPh9 G8CGjzqvnyTOCcBaAUwOybl7q/co/vr7vkObBph+vSN/vF1UhFAOIEfLXBqMRRLa cjGBdfP2OZdfnbKbAkdp7m0g53xlByIBlfq6jx7Bw1gTlT/r2dJTcPU1zQn+Yfbo TTdX+eK7XOYvWdG9+HfDpY9yth469qaYHBuOQRoF1FIa9V69n+H8WMxx0IrE/pcV dgMIGPw1HwpUEH+FFoSPSfdiv9H9zJckI7YrMEkZL68vwZ/wwDbJDchiIF9JuBj5 JASZEFYsQIKQVeGEU7w9O4hz47ci0R1sGZSlUoZK6lyTI+o6OTBipRXEUMcO2R5K 932oePBM4CqCxJbtk+7ULj2amhvArOw2KeQBok1vfT1VN5g7p6fo6cCZd7dQ9ZVF HxrkK+TbfmRAXSKLLn9GzQKbD0kc6nZp2MgiXJN8hFNsvl2stiMKKtsBSxesb44a aAS7foAqvt+bxgU2f8k91E4xybOJNKDYeOq+KQ0KlivuE93LrIiq8rdScFci1Tjh KWHfJrxawkI/ApJZZ9aYnYqsGHBIkPbQ6DVdR2hdj6ym9lA4FUvtoTuWVceeUI7g mvtt+iyr41v64l/+u3xAThL/3iA19SMDWe9tofQ/LBHvmoV3+tvALc/V3YwU5F61 9JIaFlkBxduBC2OqpkG2 =OWC4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

[aur-general] [Removal Request] electrum-entropy
by Andy Weidenbaum 01 Mar '14

01 Mar '14

I no longer wish to maintain this package<https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/electrum-entropy> . Thanks, Andy

2 1

[aur-general] [Removal Request] bitcoin-daemon-electrum
by Andy Weidenbaum 01 Mar '14

01 Mar '14

"This package <https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/bitcoin-daemon-electrum/>has been made obsolete by the new version of electrum-server-git."

2 1

[aur-general] Signoff report for [community-testing]
by Arch Website Notification 01 Mar '14

01 Mar '14

=== Signoff report for [community-testing] === https://www.archlinux.org/packages/signoffs/ There are currently: * 10 new packages in last 24 hours * 0 known bad packages * 0 packages not accepting signoffs * 0 fully signed off packages * 14 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 (10 total) == * mod_wsgi-3.4-4 (i686) * mod_wsgi2-3.4-5 (i686) * partclone-0.2.69-2 (i686) * passenger-4.0.37-2 (i686) * mod_wsgi-3.4-4 (x86_64) * mod_wsgi2-3.4-5 (x86_64) * partclone-0.2.69-2 (x86_64) * passenger-4.0.37-2 (x86_64) * mod_itk-2.4.7.r01-1 (i686) * mod_itk-2.4.7.r01-1 (x86_64) == Incomplete signoffs for [community] (12 total) == * gitg-0.3.2-1 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * mod_wsgi-3.4-4 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * mod_wsgi2-3.4-5 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * partclone-0.2.69-2 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * passenger-4.0.37-2 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * python2-systemd-209-1 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * gitg-0.3.2-1 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * mod_wsgi-3.4-4 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * mod_wsgi2-3.4-5 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * partclone-0.2.69-2 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * passenger-4.0.37-2 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * python2-systemd-209-1 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs == Incomplete signoffs for [unknown] (2 total) == * mod_itk-2.4.7.r01-1 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * mod_itk-2.4.7.r01-1 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs == Top five in signoffs in last 24 hours == 1. thomas - 4 signoffs 2. djgera - 3 signoffs

1 0

[aur-general] Merge request: Various VCS-packages
by Rikard Falkeborn 28 Feb '14

28 Feb '14

2 1

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

28 Feb '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 * 4 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] (4 total) == * gitg-0.3.2-1 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * python2-systemd-209-1 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * gitg-0.3.2-1 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * python2-systemd-209-1 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs == Top five in signoffs in last 24 hours == 1. djgera - 7 signoffs 2. thomas - 7 signoffs 3. pierre - 6 signoffs 4. dan - 2 signoffs

1 0

[aur-general] Deletion Request: antichamber-hib
by moebius282＠gmail.com 27 Feb '14

27 Feb '14

Hey, I'm the maintainer of the 'antichamber' package. https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/antichamber/ Another guy made a duplicate called 'antichamber-hib'. https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/antichamber-hib/ They both have the same function. I tried to talk to him, but sadly he didn't reply yet. Requesting deletion of 'antichamber-hib'.

2 1

[aur-general] Using old package name for new software
by Fabien Dubosson 27 Feb '14

27 Feb '14

Hello, I just discovered a tool called `q` [1] and I have done a PKGBUILD to try it. As it can be a useful to someone else, I was going to push it to AUR. But there exists already a package called `q` [2] (yeah, 26 letters are not enough for all packages) so the usual way is to call the new one otherwise regarding to its function. But in this particular case I think it worth a reflexion; Regarding to the fact that: - The package is orphan - There is no vote for the package - There is no comment on the package - The package doesn't build anymore, at least on my computer - The upstream project was named `q-lang` [3] - There is a similar AUR package (correctly) named `q-lang` [4] which provides the same software with same version. - The upstream project is announced «no longer supported» [3] and replaced by `pure` [5] which has also its own AUR package [6]. A) It is allowed to replace the existing `q` package with a completely different software? B) If yes, what is the best way to do it: - Adopt it, then push a new PKGBUILD - Ask for deletion, then push a new one. (May be useless here: no comment/vote, but still "first submitted date" field will remain) >From what I know, the only noticeable effect will be for the people who have tho existing software installed and use an AUR helper: during an update, a message can indicate that their package is more recent than the AUR one. Eventually the day when the version of the new software will be higher than the old one, the old software will be replaced by the new one. But the probability of people still using it is very low I think. Any thoughts? Regards, Fabien [1] https://github.com/harelba/q [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/q [3] http://q-lang.sourceforge.net/ [4] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/q-lang [5] http://purelang.bitbucket.org/ [6] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/pure/

2 2

[aur-general] grass7-svn -> grass70-svn merge req and a votes merge question
by Maciej Sieczka 27 Feb '14

27 Feb '14

Dear AUR admins, Could you merge grass7-svn [1] into grass70-svn [2]? Preserving the votes please, if that is possible. BTW, I guess there were some votes with grass-geos [3] and grass-trunk [4]. Those were merged into grass64 [5] and grass70-svn [2], respectively, but there was no increase in the vote count. Is it just my memory not serving well or were the votes there but not merged? Could they? [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/grass7-svn [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/grass70-svn [3] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/grass-geos [4] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/grass-trunk [5] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/grass64 -- Maciej Sieczka http://www.sieczka.org

2 4