On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 20:35:27 +0200 Jelle van der Waa <jelle@vdwaa.nl> wrote:
On 02/04/13 17:59, Jonathan Arnold wrote:
There are 2 packages for the Copy.com client software package:
copy - https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/copy/ copy-agent - https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/copy-agent/
I think both have PKGBUILD problems, from dependencies (the Copy.com software uses Qt4, not Gtk, for instance) to poorly formed PKGBUILDs (one has just a package() method and one has just a build() method). I'm not really sure how this should be resolved, mostly because I wouldn't pick one over the other right now.
Any one with more PKGBUILD confidence want to step in?
Also, if you're interested, sign up with this link and we both get an extra 5gb(!) of cloud storage on copy.com:
Imo the 'copy' package is perfectly fine. The other package installs in /opt which isn't needed.
Actually, I think you mean the copy-agent one. That has the correct dependency, as well as correctly uses the package() function, and not the build() function that the copy one does. And doesn't ln -s to programs in the /opt folder. -- Jonathan Arnold Webstream: http://hieronymus.soup.io Talent wins games, but team work and intelligence wins championships. Michael Jordan