- Aur-general - lists.archlinux.org

[aur-general] Delete gtk-theme-equinox-radiance
by Joao Cordeiro 17 Jul '11

17 Jul '11

Maintainer created a new package for the same theme (see comments). Thank you. [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=35869

3 3

[aur-general] delete steadyflow-all-inclusive
by Joao Cordeiro 16 Jul '11

16 Jul '11

This package is obsolete and replaced by maintainer (see comments). Thanks. [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=49492

2 1

[aur-general] Orphan Request
by Mark Foxwell 16 Jul '11

16 Jul '11

Hi, Please can you orphan weechat-git [1]. I emailed the maintainer on 2nd July with a much more cleaner PKGBUILD but not had reply in two weeks. Thanks in advance, Mark

2 2

[aur-general] Delete request
by rafael ff1 16 Jul '11

16 Jul '11

caffeine-gnome3 [1] is based in a branch that was already merged [2] to trunk, which is provided by package caffeine [3]. Therefore, no need for this package package anymore. Please delete caffeine-gnome3. [1] http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=49831 [2] http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~caffeine-developers/caffeine/main/revision/377 [3] http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=29762 Thanks, Rafael

2 1

[aur-general] PCSX2 Plugins folder - suggestion?
by rafael ff1 16 Jul '11

16 Jul '11

Hi all, I'm the maintainer of the package pcsx2-svn[1]. PCSX2 from now on will install files in a different folder than /opt/pcsx2 - I'm still going to adapt the PKGBUILD. Plugins, as I can see in Archlinux Packaging Standards [2], should go to /var/lib/pcsx2/PLUGINNAME.so... However, pcsx2 is a 32 bit package and only works in 64 bit because it uses lib32 packages. In my 64 bit system, I can see that the compilation of pcsx2 [gcc -m32, thanks to gcc-multilib] gives me ELF 32 bit plugins, which makes it a little bit weird to have it inside /var/lib/pcsx2 - which is a system's architecture folder. However, on 32 bit systems, there would be no problem putting plugins in /var/lib/pcsx2. Having that said, where should 32 and 64 bit compilations of PCSX2 put its plugins (talking about /varlib/pcsx2 and /var/lib32/pcsx2)? [1] http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=21899 [2] https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_Packaging_Standards Thanks in advance, Rafael

3 5

[aur-general] Orphan request
by Marco Schulze 15 Jul '11

15 Jul '11

Please orphan zpaq [1]. I contacted tuxspirit by email and he agreed to transfer it to me, but he forgot to orphan the package and he doesn't seem to check his emails often (more than a week with no replies). [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=29726

2 1

[aur-general] large number of deprecated/duplicate flashplugin packages
by Anish Bhatt 14 Jul '11

14 Jul '11

All of these packages are either orphaned/out-of-date/duplicate or deprecated. Could someone delete these please ? http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=47038 http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=47308 http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=49704 http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=50704 http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=44101 Also, adobe at one point had three seperate flash releases available, and had versioning/architecture issues that required three seperate AUR packages. Their last release consolidates all these releases, rendering two of these packages obsolete. Adobe also tends to use adjectives like prerelease/beta/preview randomly, causing further package naming issues. (eg, all -prerelease packages have now become -beta, when there used to be seperate -beta & -prerelease releases earlier). What's a good way to consolidate users of the three packages into the correct one ? -Anish -- As long as the music's loud enough, we won't hear the world falling apart.

3 3

[aur-general] The license of flashplugin(-prerelease) requires a download?
by Nimeton maili 14 Jul '11

14 Jul '11

There was some discussion in the flashplugin-prerelease's comment section[1] whether or not the PDF license of Flash Player (that is bigger than the tarball of the plugin itself) would be required to download along with the package. There was a suggestion to just use the post_install to link to the license (which the same guy said was redundant anyway because "We all know what we're installing, and how proprietary it is"). I could not care less for the license either but it's not that hard to just cut out the URL from the source=() section. So here we are. What do you guys think? Thanks for your time, Det [1] = http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=32072

5 6

[aur-general] Request for PKGBUILD check: perl-pdl 2.4.9-1
by Anton Leontiev 13 Jul '11

13 Jul '11

Hi, all! Could you help me with PKGBUILD for Perl's PDL module? Currently I'm stuck with makedepends/optdepends. There is a number of dependencies which are optional, but to get PDL work with them as with optional packages in Arch, it should be compiled with them. So I added the in both makedepends and optdepends. Am I right? What are official recommendations for AUR packages in this case? Thank you in advance. -- Anton Leontiev <bunder(a)t-25.ru>

2 1

[aur-general] Ask for checking a PKGBUILD
by Marat Mukhametshin 13 Jul '11

13 Jul '11

3 2