- Aur-general - lists.archlinux.org

[aur-general] Packages up for adoption in community.
by Thomas Dziedzic 06 Apr '12

06 Apr '12

Hi I am disowning vtk, paraview (along with libcgns2 as a dep), nut, root, and swi-prolog in community. I will give the devs/tus a week to adopt them before I move them to the aur. Cheers!

1 1

[aur-general] Deletion request: linux-aircrack
by Ifai Gios 06 Apr '12

06 Apr '12

The AUR package linux-aircrack<https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=51272>is obsolete as of linux-3.3, as the patches it includes are now implemented into linux. Please delete the AUR package. Thank you in advance The maintainer, ifaigios

2 1

[aur-general] Deletion request: 'drm' and 'trim'
by Fortunato Ventre 05 Apr '12

05 Apr '12

Hi, please remove drm[1] and trim[2]. I've released dsromsmanager 1.4 and created a new PKGBUILD for it[3]. I've merged both the old packages into this one. Thanks. [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=37452 [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=37453 [3] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=58220

2 1

[aur-general] Signoff report for [community-testing]
by Arch Website Notification 05 Apr '12

05 Apr '12

=== 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 * 26 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) == * rsyslog-6.2.0-2 (i686) * rsyslog-6.2.0-2 (x86_64) == Incomplete signoffs for [community] (26 total) == * avr-libc-1.8.0-3 (any) 0/2 signoffs * initscripts-systemd-v44.1-1 (any) 0/2 signoffs * laptop-mode-tools-1.60-2 (any) 0/2 signoffs * systemd-arch-units-20120401-1 (any) 0/2 signoffs * avr-binutils-2.22-3 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * avr-gcc-4.7.0-1 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * contacts-0.12-6 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * dates-0.4.11-5 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * lomoco-1.0-8 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * multipath-tools-0.4.9-6 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * rsyslog-6.2.0-2 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * usb_modeswitch-1.2.2-2 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * vhba-module-20110915-6 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * virtualbox-modules-4.1.12-2 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * xbmc-11.0-2 (i686) 1/2 signoffs * avr-binutils-2.22-3 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * avr-gcc-4.7.0-1 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * contacts-0.12-6 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * dates-0.4.11-5 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * lomoco-1.0-8 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * multipath-tools-0.4.9-6 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * rsyslog-6.2.0-2 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * usb_modeswitch-1.2.2-2 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * vhba-module-20110915-6 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * virtualbox-modules-4.1.12-2 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * xbmc-11.0-2 (x86_64) 1/2 signoffs == Top five in signoffs in last 24 hours == 1. tomegun - 11 signoffs 2. thomas - 7 signoffs 3. allan - 5 signoffs 4. foutrelis - 4 signoffs 5. dreisner - 3 signoffs

1 0

[aur-general] Merge Request
by Luca Bennati 04 Apr '12

04 Apr '12

I kindly ask a TU to merge my package freetype2-lcd_ ( https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=12283) with the newly updated and renamed freetype2-lcd (https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=58190)

3 2

[aur-general] Signoff report for [community-testing]
by Arch Website Notification 04 Apr '12

04 Apr '12

=== 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 * 30 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) == * virtualbox-modules-4.1.12-2 (i686) * virtualbox-modules-4.1.12-2 (x86_64) == Incomplete signoffs for [community] (30 total) == * avr-libc-1.8.0-3 (any) 0/2 signoffs * initscripts-systemd-v44.1-1 (any) 0/2 signoffs * laptop-mode-tools-1.60-2 (any) 0/2 signoffs * systemd-arch-units-20120401-1 (any) 0/2 signoffs * avr-binutils-2.22-3 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * avr-gcc-4.7.0-1 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * contacts-0.12-6 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * dates-0.4.11-5 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * gnustep-back-0.22.0-2 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * gnustep-base-1.24.0-2 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * gnustep-gui-0.22.0-2 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * lomoco-1.0-8 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * multipath-tools-0.4.9-6 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * usb_modeswitch-1.2.2-2 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * vhba-module-20110915-6 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * virtualbox-modules-4.1.12-2 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * xbmc-11.0-2 (i686) 1/2 signoffs * avr-binutils-2.22-3 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * avr-gcc-4.7.0-1 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * contacts-0.12-6 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * dates-0.4.11-5 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * gnustep-back-0.22.0-2 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * gnustep-base-1.24.0-2 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * gnustep-gui-0.22.0-2 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * lomoco-1.0-8 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * multipath-tools-0.4.9-6 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * usb_modeswitch-1.2.2-2 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * vhba-module-20110915-6 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * virtualbox-modules-4.1.12-2 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * xbmc-11.0-2 (x86_64) 1/2 signoffs == Top five in signoffs in last 24 hours == 1. bisson - 11 signoffs 2. thomas - 4 signoffs 3. stephane - 2 signoffs 4. foutrelis - 1 signoffs

1 0

[aur-general] Removal request: virtualbox-sun
by Det 03 Apr '12

03 Apr '12

I guess this is a good summary of all the talk in virtualbox-sun's comment section[1]. The reality here is that virtualbox-bin[2] has evolved into something _at least_ as good as virtualbox-sun. While it's true that -sun is the original one it's also the one with the incorrect naming, a bit slower updates (by a day or so) and less votes (229 vs -bin's 3430). Because we can't justify keeping duplicated work around just to make everybody happy, one of them has to go. Even if -sun was to stay here the "better" stuff in -bin would have to be implemented there first before the removal and the renaming. When put together with the comment/vote merge it's starting to sound a bit pointless (taken how we can just remove that one). I know what I'd do but it's not my decision: it's yours. [1] virtualbox-sun = https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=31996 [2] virtualbox-bin = https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=51727 Det

5 9

[aur-general] Signoff report for [community-testing]
by Arch Website Notification 03 Apr '12

03 Apr '12

=== 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 * 30 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 (1 total) == * initscripts-systemd-v44.1-1 (any) == Incomplete signoffs for [community] (30 total) == * avr-libc-1.8.0-3 (any) 0/2 signoffs * initscripts-systemd-v44.1-1 (any) 0/2 signoffs * laptop-mode-tools-1.60-2 (any) 0/2 signoffs * systemd-arch-units-20120401-1 (any) 0/2 signoffs * avr-binutils-2.22-3 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * avr-gcc-4.7.0-1 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * contacts-0.12-6 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * dates-0.4.11-5 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * gnustep-back-0.22.0-2 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * gnustep-base-1.24.0-2 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * gnustep-gui-0.22.0-2 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * lomoco-1.0-8 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * multipath-tools-0.4.9-6 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * usb_modeswitch-1.2.2-2 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * vhba-module-20110915-6 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * virtualbox-modules-4.1.10-2 (i686) 1/2 signoffs * xbmc-11.0-2 (i686) 1/2 signoffs * avr-binutils-2.22-3 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * avr-gcc-4.7.0-1 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * contacts-0.12-6 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * dates-0.4.11-5 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * gnustep-back-0.22.0-2 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * gnustep-base-1.24.0-2 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * gnustep-gui-0.22.0-2 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * lomoco-1.0-8 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * multipath-tools-0.4.9-6 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * usb_modeswitch-1.2.2-2 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * vhba-module-20110915-6 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * virtualbox-modules-4.1.10-2 (x86_64) 1/2 signoffs * xbmc-11.0-2 (x86_64) 1/2 signoffs == All packages in [community-testing] for more than 14 days (1 total) == * virtualbox-modules-4.1.10-2 (x86_64), since 2012-03-19 == Top five in signoffs in last 24 hours == 1. allan - 8 signoffs 2. tomegun - 6 signoffs 3. foutrelis - 2 signoffs 4. idevolder - 2 signoffs 5. stephane - 1 signoffs

1 0

[aur-general] (no subject)
by Huub Munstege 02 Apr '12

02 Apr '12

<a href="http://wife2.stopcrisis.net/cache/com_lyftenbloggie/02efpk.html"> http://wife2.stopcrisis.net/cache/com_lyftenbloggie/02efpk.html</a>

1 0

[aur-general] Deletion Request
by Alexandre Ferrando 02 Apr '12

02 Apr '12

I've noticed today that a package that I am maintaining in the AUR [ 0 ] , baobab, has appeared also into testing [ 1 ] It seems to me that the logic option here is to delete baobab in the AUR, so please, go ahead. Thank you in advance [ 0 ] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=12673 [ 1 ] https://www.archlinux.org/packages/testing/x86_64/baobab/

2 1