- Aur-general - lists.archlinux.org

[aur-general] Deletion Request
by rafael ff1 21 Nov '11

21 Nov '11

portaudio-pulse [1] is a redundancy of portaudio, as stated by the previous maintainer. Please delete. [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=51583 Thanks in advance

2 1

[aur-general] OCaml clean-up!
by Sergei Lebedev 21 Nov '11

21 Nov '11

Hello, Can you please delete some of my OCaml packages, not worth maintaining any more: 1. ocaml-experimental [https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=53015] Renamed to `ocamlnat`, doesn't compile on Arch currently. 2. ocaml-binary-git [https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=51420] Is already available in `ocaml-core` [1] 3. ocaml-oasis-darcs [https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=51422] The development has frozen and the version, available in the repository is the same as in `ocaml-oasis` [2] package 4. ocaml-quickcheck-git [https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=52335] The repo is not updated, so why maintain a -git version. 5. ocaml-erlang-port-git [https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=51053] Same as above. Also, there's a number of orphaned OCaml packages [3], which stayed orphaned for quite a while now, maybe they should be deleted as well? Thanks, Sergei [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=33904 [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=39946 [3] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?O=0&K=ocaml&do_Orphans=Orphans&detai…

2 1

[aur-general] Update request for supertuxkart
by Heiko Baums 21 Nov '11

21 Nov '11

Hi TUs, may I request an update of supertuxkart in [community]? It's already flagged as out-of-date since 2011-04-15 and was last updated on 2010-12-21. Meanwhile the third update was released by upstream. The latest version in [community] is 0.7, the latest upstream version is 0.7.3. So it would be nice if it would be updated in [community], too. Heiko

7 11

[aur-general] Signoff report for [community-testing]
by Arch Website Notification 21 Nov '11

21 Nov '11

=== 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 * 1 fully signed off package * 11 packages missing signoffs * 8 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] (9 total) == * fail2ban-0.8.4-3 (any) 1/2 signoffs * pacman-contrib-4.0.0-2 (any) 1/1000 signoffs * expac-0.07-1 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * ogre-1.8.0RC1-1 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * packagekit-0.6.19-2 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * qtcreator-2.4.0rc-1 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * ogre-1.8.0RC1-1 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * packagekit-0.6.19-2 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * qtcreator-2.4.0rc-1 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs == Incomplete signoffs for [unknown] (2 total) == * percona-server-5.5.16_rel22.0-1 (i686) 1/2 signoffs * percona-server-5.5.16_rel22.0-1 (x86_64) 1/2 signoffs == Completed signoffs (1 total) == * expac-0.07-1 (x86_64) == All packages in [community-testing] for more than 14 days (8 total) == * fail2ban-0.8.4-3 (any), since 2011-04-10 * expac-0.07-1 (i686), since 2011-10-13 * expac-0.07-1 (x86_64), since 2011-10-13 * pacman-contrib-4.0.0-2 (any), since 2011-10-15 * percona-server-5.5.16_rel22.0-1 (i686), since 2011-10-26 * percona-server-5.5.16_rel22.0-1 (x86_64), since 2011-10-26 * packagekit-0.6.19-2 (i686), since 2011-10-31 * packagekit-0.6.19-2 (x86_64), since 2011-10-31 == Top five in signoffs in last 24 hours == 1. dan - 2 signoffs 2. tomegun - 2 signoffs 3. dreisner - 2 signoffs

1 0

[aur-general] Orphaning a 1000 packages
by Magnus Therning 21 Nov '11

21 Nov '11

I'm the current maintainer of ArchHaskell and within the small team we've reached the decision to drop support for the huge set of package owned by the user arch-haskell on AUR. Currently we maintain 300+ binary packages, and we'd like to keep them on AUR. All others should be orphaned (or removed). Doing that manually would be painful to say the least, are there any tools that assist with mass-orphaning? /M -- Magnus Therning OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4 email: magnus(a)therning.org jabber: magnus(a)therning.org twitter: magthe http://therning.org/magnus Most software today is very much like an Egyptian pyramid with millions of bricks piled on top of each other, with no structural integrity, but just done by brute force and thousands of slaves. -- Alan Kay

4 9

[aur-general] Removal request: darktable-no-gconf
by Andrzej Giniewicz 21 Nov '11

21 Nov '11

Hi, I'd like to ask to remove the darktable-no-gconf package - https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=54069 - it was created as a workaround around segfaults/errors that occur when gconf is enabled. Now, the fix is included in community darktable package and darktable-no-gconf is no longer required. Thanks, Andrzej.

2 1

Re: [aur-general] Replace nautilus-share with nautilus-share-upstream
by Sebastian Wiesner 21 Nov '11

21 Nov '11

2011/11/13 Nevar <psi.neamf(a)gmail.com>: > I left a comment on nautilus-share when I created my package : > "Suluc_Ohmun: If you use it I can remove that package so you can maintain > this one." > So until s/he responds or takes action, there's not much I can do. They can > be merged or nautilus-share can be deleted, either suits me. Bumping this. It's now over two weeks since this comment (which was posted at Nov, 7th) with no change. Please replace nautilus-share with nautilus-share-upstream. Thanks :) > On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 6:22 PM, Sebastian Wiesner > <lunaryorn(a)googlemail.com> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> there are currently two packages for nautilus-share in the AUR. >> nautilus-share extends nautilus with means to configure Samba sharing >> for folders. nautilus-share [1] packages an outdated version patched >> for Gnome 3 by the packager/maintainer. nautilus-share-upstream [2] >> provides the current upstream version of the package which supports >> Gnome 3 natively. Consequently the former is superfluous and marked >> out of date now. >> >> Could nautilus-share-upstream be merged into nautilus-share? >> >> Note that I maintain neither of these packages, I've just stumbled >> upon this situation when searching for nautilus-share in the AUR. >> >> [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=47443 >> [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=53814 > >

2 1

[aur-general] Request: Merge libpurple-kwallet-plugin with libpurple-kwallet
by Zom Aur 21 Nov '11

21 Nov '11

Hello, I've recently created the libpurple-kwallet package and adopted libpurple-kwallet-plugin. Looking at the other libpurple-plugins on AUR, I think libpurple-kwallet should be the desired name to match the other plugins. Could someone either merge libpurple-kwallet-plugin with this or just remove it? Thanks, Zom

2 1

[aur-general] Removal request: boo
by Tasos Latsas 21 Nov '11

21 Nov '11

Hello, boo already in extra https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=25365 -- Tasos Latsas gpg: 0x219810C9 http://www.kodama.gr https://github.com/tlatsas

2 1

[aur-general] AUR cleanup
by Nicola Bignami 20 Nov '11

20 Nov '11

I see that there are more than 6700 orphan packages. Of those, more than 2400 are also flagged out of date (some packages have not been updated since 2007). Many packages are only waiting for a new maintainer but I think that many are only waiting to be scrapped as they're already been replaced by some other package in the AUR or in the community repository (or just become obsolete). I'm wondering if the time has come to look into them to find out what worth to keep and what have to be removed and thus do some cleanup. If can be useful, I can start working on it.

8 17