- Aur-general - lists.archlinux.org

[aur-general] Errors on submission: Invalid name: only lowercase letters are allowed
by andrew thomas 06 Feb '11

06 Feb '11

I tried adopted this package (kernel26-yi) http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=37895 But when I tried to upload an updated PKGBUILD. I got rejected with "Invalid name: only lowercase letters are allowed" I used makepkg --source to generate a file named kernel26-yi-2.6.37-1.src.tar.gz. Why am I receiving this error? Thanks. andrewthomas

3 3

[aur-general] deletion request
by KESHAV P.R. 06 Feb '11

06 Feb '11

Can someone please delete efibootmgr http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=11899 . It was moved into 'extra' repo http://www.archlinux.org/packages/extra/x86_64/efibootmgr/ by tpowa about 2 days back. Thanks in advance. - Keshav

2 3

[aur-general] Moving packages to Community
by Maxime Wack 06 Feb '11

06 Feb '11

I had the same "problem" a few weeks ago, when the polipo package I was maintaining was moved to [Community] without any notice. I got aware of this when yaourt told me my version of polipo was not the same as in the repos… imagine my surprise when I didn't find my package on AUR anymore. Not that I particularly care about that package, or that I didn't want it to be in [Community], in fact it's for the best, less work for me ! But what I didn't like was that it was done without any comment or notice. Don't get me wrong, I'm absolutely not implying that it was MY precious package and that it felt like stealing, or that he had to wait for my approval. It's just that talking about a community-driven repository, the least you could expect from any user (and even more from a *trusted* user) would be to communicate about what he's doing, so that everything goes clear, acknowledged and understood. After discovering this, I emailed Jelle van der Waa (who adopted the package), on 01/21, writing : >Hello, I'm SataMaxx on AUR and was maintaining the polipo package. >I've seen that you adopted and ported it to [Community] and be assured that I really don't mind about this, however I think it would have been nice to notify me, just as a matter of good communication practice. > >Thank you, have a nice day ! " And I didn't get any answer…

4 3

[aur-general] Introduce kernel26-tools
by Seblu 05 Feb '11

05 Feb '11

Dear Arch Users/Dev/TUs, I read some times ago on this mailing list words about shortly introducing new cool packages. I'm starting. >From some times now, I discovered the power of a kernel embeded tools named perf, which is really useful to get information about your kernel performances and hunt performances issues. Something really awesome is to see perf of a guest kvm kernel inside the host kvm. Famous mode you can test are: perf top perf bench perf record perf kvm A link :https://perf.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Main_Page#Perf_tools I push a PKGBUILD into AUR to easily install this tool from kernel sources: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=46188. Name of the package come from debian (http://packages.debian.org/squeeze/linux-tools-2.6.32) Regards, -- Sébastien Luttringer www.seblu.net

2 1

Re: [aur-general] Moving packages to Community
by Maxime Wack 05 Feb '11

05 Feb '11

Le -10/01/-28163 20:59, Hilton Medeiros a écrit : > > Now, that is outrageous. Stealing your package is already a very nasty > thing to do, but not replying to your email is unforgivable! > > From today onwards we shall call him: Jelle, the Soulless. > Wow, I didn't expect to be trolled on aur-general… Let's just shorten everything to one question : what is a community without communication ?

3 2

Re: [aur-general] Moving packages to Community
by Nicky726 05 Feb '11

05 Feb '11

Hi Angel, > This is opensource world dude, can you see it?, so forget those > "autorship" and "license" of those PKGBUILD, plus, in many cases, many > of the packages went from one people to another. Btw I don't know why > people refers to packages when we are talking about aurballs > containing PKGBUILD, this is different from a package. I feared the "authorship" word may get too much of attention. Its a sad result of ugly missuse of todays. The authorship I meant -- and sorry for not making myself clear the first time -- is a relation of one who creates to the thing created, or of all who create that is too. No licence fees, nor revenues, nor copyright needed, nor asked for. Just simple A (+ B) created this PKGBUILD/package -- the difference now is unimportant. > As Ioni said, he kept the Contributor tag, I don't see the point of > whining if your work as a maintainer is recognized on that PKGBUILD > but I don't see the point of contributing expecting recognition, we > are humans, I know, but what can make you happier than the fact that > your work evolved and now you have opportunity to evolve with it too > (i.e maintaining new PKGBUILD and then applying to be a TU). I also think that keeping the contributor tag is right. And I also am happy when my PKGBUILD gets promoted to repo. Though I'd be happier if I heard from the TU first (than finding out some day accidentaly that the PKGBUILD is not in the AUR anymore but now in the [community] as mentioned somewhere here). It is not as much of my own happiness -- though it motivates one if he hears it from the TU not just finds out accidentaly -- as also of bothsides politeness. > We eventually show our respect to the author to notice him that we do > will move your package, Now with this I would be maximaly fine. > but it's arrogant and too stupid to pretend > that a TU or Dev have to `ask you for permission` I guess I see your point. This is too strong. Though there should be some kind of inner `I have to ask him` comming from one's human politenes. Like `I want to move foo to community, is it ok with you? By the way good job maintaining it.` Most of the time the answer would be `yes` of course, but this motivates one to contribute. And sometimes one would answer `I am planning to become TU soon and would like to maintain this, so would you wait with the adoption till my becoming TU is resolved?` Now that does motivate too, doesn't it? > <--- THIS IS > MADNESS, you aren't the owner of that PKGBUILD ! even if you wrote it > from scratch! the next thing after from asking for permission will be > "please pay me" .. so hell no. For myself I contribute to Arch because I feel in a way obliged to, as it is a great distro which gave me much. So I hope stuff I put into AUR makes Arch better and help others. I want no money for it, just polite human comunication of what is going on. By the way, thanx for baring with me, Nicky -- Don't it always seem to go That you don't know what you've got Till it's gone (Joni Mitchell)

1 0

[aur-general] Orphan request: gnome-paint
by György Balló 05 Feb '11

05 Feb '11

Please orphan gnome-paint package [1], because it's outdated for a while, and my e-mail to the maintainer was rejected (the address is not exists). [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=32487 -- City-busz

2 1

[aur-general] Request removal: pngout-static-athlon, pngout-static-pentium4
by Lou 05 Feb '11

05 Feb '11

I just adopted and updated pngout-static, but there are some additional pngout-static packages available that are old, outdated, and orphaned. Nobody cares about these and nothing depends on them either. pngout-static-athlon http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=38727 pngout-static-pentium4 http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=38728

2 2

[aur-general] deletion request: dino-git
by masutu 05 Feb '11

05 Feb '11

Hi TUs, can you please delete dino-git ( http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=33598)? I'm the maintainer of this package and want it to be deleted because a) PKGBUILD is broken, outdated and i can't get current git versions to compile (neither master branch nor Branch_0_2) b) dino is not very popular, dino has 3 votes, dino-git 0 votes, so i think, we can live without the git package masutu

5 5

[aur-general] [community], [unsupported] and AUR
by Xyne 05 Feb '11

05 Feb '11

Hi, A post on the forum[1] brought my attention to the Official Repositories wiki page[2]. A recent note by Louipc states: "Technically, both the [community] and [unsupported] repos make up the AUR.". Is this really still true? The AUR website is completely independent of [community] now and I believe that all technical ties between [community] and [unsupported] have been severed. AUR pages on the wiki clearly refer to [unsupported] in many contexts, e.g. the main AUR article[3] contains the following snippets: "The Arch User Repository (AUR) is a community-driven repository for Arch users. It contains package descriptions (PKGBUILDs) that allow you to compile a package from source with makepkg and then install it via pacman." "[community], unlike AUR, contains binary packages" I also believe that most users immediately think of [unsupported] and only [unsupported] when speaking of the AUR. Furthermore, both are repositories in their own right, so it is a misnomer to refer to them as a singular "Arch User Repository". What is the point of claiming that [community] is part of AUR? It seems like an unnecessarily confusing vestige of [community]'s origins. [1]: https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?pid=887426 [2]: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Official_Repositories [3]: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/AUR

5 4