- Aur-general - lists.archlinux.org

[aur-general] delete request check-svn
by Stefan Husmann 08 Apr '13

08 Apr '13

Hello, the check-svn [1] package was introduced as a dependency to the gnupdf-bzr [2] package. Now the check-package [3][4] in [extra] also provides version 0.9.9 and thus is recent enough. Both do not differ much. Please remove check-svn. Best Regards Stefan. [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/check-svn/ [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/gnupdf-bzr/ [3] https://www.archlinux.org/packages/extra/i686/check/ [4] https://www.archlinux.org/packages/extra/x86_64/check/

2 1

[aur-general] phasex clean up
by Rob Til Freedmen 08 Apr '13

08 Apr '13

These packages are out-dated and build from a disabled/not maintained repository https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/phasex-dev/ https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/phasex-dev-git/ and should probably deleted from the AUR They are replaced by these packages: build from a tar ball https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/phasex/ build from the new repository https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/phasex-git/

2 1

[aur-general] Orphan/delete requests
by Limao Luo 08 Apr '13

08 Apr '13

Orphan request: xflux [1] does not follow the AUR package guideline that specifically says not to use $startdir. Delete request: All of the sources for trushuffle [2] (same maintainer as [1]) do not exist. Yes, there is a launchpad repo, but all the sources were deleted from there too. It has pretty much disappeared off the face of the earth. In addition to comments in the respective packages regarding what should be done, I notified the maintainer of both of these packages 2 weeks ago with no response or update. Thanks in advance. -luolimao [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/xflux/ [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/trushuffle/

2 3

[aur-general] copy delete request
by Jonathan Arnold 08 Apr '13

08 Apr '13

Perhaps due to the copy vs copy-agent request, copy[1] was orphaned. I think it can be safely deleted, as copy-agent[2] is a better PKGBUILD, albeit not without its own flaws. [1] - https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/copy/ [2] - https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/copy-agent/ -- Jonathan Arnold Webstream: http://hieronymus.soup.io Talent wins games, but team work and intelligence wins championships. Michael Jordan

2 1

[aur-general] Merge and deletion requests
by Lex Black 08 Apr '13

08 Apr '13

Hello Some packages that can be removed or merged with others: To Merge: yturl: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/yturl/ See comment. New package yturl-git ( https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/yturl-git/ ). deadbeef-devel-git: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/deadbeef-devel-git/ Same like deadbeef-git ( https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/deadbeef-git/ ), which is a better PKGBuild fitz-git: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/fitz-git/ mupdf-git ( https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/mupdf-git/ ) is the same, but maintained ------------- Dunno what best: lll-git: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/lll-git/ Deprecated and replaced by https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/llvmlinux-git/ kvm-git: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/kvm-git/ Officially got qemu-kvm merged back into qemu with version 1.3. So should this be deleted or merged with qemu-git? ------------- To Delete: zatellite-git: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/zatellite-git/ Source dead bluckywm-git: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/bluckywm-git/ Even if the dep is changed to xcb-util-wm (that's what it needs), it doesn't build. Also the original repo is dead laurel-git: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/laurel-git/ Project got deleted llvm-clay-git: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/llvm-clay-git/ See comment Thanks in advance Lex

2 1

[aur-general] nanoc3 deletion request
by Jeremy Audet 08 Apr '13

08 Apr '13

I'm requesting the deletion of the AUR package nanoc3. [1] The AUR currently includes two similarly-named packages: nanoc and nanoc3. At one time, nanoc provided v2.x of the gem, and nanoc3 provided v3.x of the gem. [2] However, nanoc has supseded nanoc3. If you look at rubygems.org, you can see that the two development lines merged from 3.2.0 to 3.3.0. After the release of 3.3.0, nanoc3 releases stopped, whereas nanoc releases continued. [3][4] Thus, nanoc3 is no longer being developed, and it has been superseded. One last question: assuming the deletion request is approved, should the nanoc PKGBUILD both replace() and provide() nanoc3? If I understand correctly, the replace() would allow nanoc3 users a clean upgrade path, whereas the provide() would allow programs that depend on nanoc3 to use nanoc. (new package maintainer here, so still fleshing out my understanding of things) [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/ruby-nanoc3/ [2] http://nanoc.ws/wiki-old/Development_3.1_BetterGemAndExecutableNames/ [3] https://rubygems.org/gems/nanoc/versions [4] https://rubygems.org/gems/nanoc3/versions -- Jeremy "Ichimonji10" Audet

5 10

[aur-general] Merge request: pysces, python2-sundials
by Michael Schubert 08 Apr '13

08 Apr '13

Dear TUs, Please merge: python2-pysces [1] => pysces [2] [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/python2-pysces/ [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/pysces/ python2-pysundials [3] => python2-sundials [4] [3] <https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/python2-sundials/>https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/python2-pysundials/ [4] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/python2-sundials/ Reason: better naming scheme. I am the maintainer of all. Thanks Michael

3 4

[aur-general] Signoff report for [community-testing]
by Arch Website Notification 08 Apr '13

08 Apr '13

=== 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 * 30 packages missing signoffs * 6 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] (30 total) == * bbswitch-0.6-3 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * cdfs-2.6.27-40 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * fcron-3.1.2-1 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * ndiswrapper-1.58-5 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * open-vm-tools-modules-1:9.2.2-9 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * oss-4.2_2007-3 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * r8168-8.035.00-8 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * r8168-lts-8.035.00-2 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * rt3562sta-2.4.1.1-26 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * shapelib-1.3.0-1 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * tp_smapi-0.41-17 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * tp_smapi-lts-0.41-10 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * vhba-module-20120422-20 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * virtualbox-modules-4.2.10-4 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * virtualbox-modules-lts-4.2.10-3 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * bbswitch-0.6-3 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * cdfs-2.6.27-40 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * fcron-3.1.2-1 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * ndiswrapper-1.58-5 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * open-vm-tools-modules-1:9.2.2-9 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * oss-4.2_2007-3 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * r8168-8.035.00-8 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * r8168-lts-8.035.00-2 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * rt3562sta-2.4.1.1-26 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * shapelib-1.3.0-1 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * tp_smapi-0.41-17 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * tp_smapi-lts-0.41-10 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * vhba-module-20120422-20 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * virtualbox-modules-4.2.10-4 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * virtualbox-modules-lts-4.2.10-3 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs == All packages in [community-testing] for more than 14 days (6 total) == * shapelib-1.3.0-1 (i686), since 2013-02-24 * shapelib-1.3.0-1 (x86_64), since 2013-02-24 * oss-4.2_2007-3 (i686), since 2013-03-14 * oss-4.2_2007-3 (x86_64), since 2013-03-14 * fcron-3.1.2-1 (i686), since 2013-03-19 * fcron-3.1.2-1 (x86_64), since 2013-03-19 == Top five in signoffs in last 24 hours == 1. foutrelis - 2 signoffs

1 0

[aur-general] font package category in AUR?
by johnea 08 Apr '13

08 Apr '13

I did a quick search to see if this has been discussed before, but found nothing. It seems it would help organization if there was a "font" category for AUR packages. Font are in all kinds of categories, and with inconsistent names. This makes it difficult to separate fonts from utilities and system files, and makes it hard to find all available fonts. Could a font category be added for AUR packages? Thank You...

4 5

[aur-general] Delete request - chromium-browser-ppa (and related)
by Jakub Klinkovský 08 Apr '13

08 Apr '13

Please delete these packages, the sources are fetched from an out-of-date repo (last update was a year ago), previous mainainer disowned them today after I sent him an email. https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/chromium-browser-ppa/ https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/chromium-browser-inspector-ppa/ https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/chromium-browser-l10n-ppa/ https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/chromium-codecs-ffmpeg-extra-ppa/ https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/chromium-codecs-ffmpeg-nonfree-bin/

2 1