Missing x86_64 Packages: No new package supplied for xdotool 20080720-5! -- This is an automated message. If you wish to stop receiving it twice a day, fix the package(s).
aur-notify@archlinux.org wrote:
Missing x86_64 Packages: No new package supplied for xdotool 20080720-5!
-- This is an automated message. If you wish to stop receiving it twice a day, fix the package(s).
This is weird. I uploaded the x86_64 package yesterday using `tupkg -p1035' and then tagged it as CURRENT-64. Did I miss any steps?
Evangelos Foutras wrote:
aur-notify@archlinux.org wrote:
Missing x86_64 Packages: No new package supplied for xdotool 20080720-5!
-- This is an automated message. If you wish to stop receiving it twice a day, fix the package(s).
This is weird. I uploaded the x86_64 package yesterday using `tupkg -p1035' and then tagged it as CURRENT-64.
Did I miss any steps?
Use the "communitypkg" script. Everything is automated there to prevent problems like this. Allan
Allan McRae wrote:
Use the "communitypkg" script. Everything is automated there to prevent problems like this.
Allan
The thing is that I built the package on another machine running x86_64 and then uploaded the package from my machine (i686). I'll go over the communitypkg script and see if I missed anything.
Evangelos Foutras wrote:
Allan McRae wrote:
Use the "communitypkg" script. Everything is automated there to prevent problems like this.
Allan
The thing is that I built the package on another machine running x86_64 and then uploaded the package from my machine (i686).
I'll go over the communitypkg script and see if I missed anything.
Never done that, but my guess is that you didn't remove the arch from the package name. I don't think the community back-end is compatible with makepkg3 package naming. As I know other TU's do this too, it would be good if someone altered the communitypkg to create a communitypkg64 script that automates this in one command. Allan
Allan McRae wrote:
Never done that, but my guess is that you didn't remove the arch from the package name. I don't think the community back-end is compatible with makepkg3 package naming.
As I know other TU's do this too, it would be good if someone altered the communitypkg to create a communitypkg64 script that automates this in one command.
Allan
Yes, you're right; I've reached the same conclusion by looking at communitypkg's source (lines 94-98). I'm going to remove the architecture part from the package's filename and re-upload it. Thanks for the help.
On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 4:13 PM, Allan McRae <allan@archlinux.org> wrote:
Evangelos Foutras wrote:
Allan McRae wrote:
Use the "communitypkg" script. Everything is automated there to prevent problems like this.
Allan
The thing is that I built the package on another machine running x86_64 and then uploaded the package from my machine (i686).
I'll go over the communitypkg script and see if I missed anything.
Never done that, but my guess is that you didn't remove the arch from the package name. I don't think the community back-end is compatible with makepkg3 package naming.
As I know other TU's do this too, it would be good if someone altered the communitypkg to create a communitypkg64 script that automates this in one command.
Allan
I believe I have a communitypkg64 script still somewhere on my laptop from the times I hadn't x86_64 (don't remember who created it though). I'll check when I'm home. Ronald
-----Original Message-----
Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2008 19:07:39 +0200 Subject: Re: [aur-general] Missing Packages From: "Ronald van Haren" <pressh@gmail.com style="margin:0px;"> To: "Discussion about the Arch User Repository (AUR)" <aur-general@archlinux.org>
On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 4:13 PM, Allan McRae <allan@archlinux.org> wrote:
Evangelos Foutras wrote:
Allan McRae wrote:
Use the "communitypkg" script. Everything is automated there to prevent problems like this.
Allan
The thing is that I built the package on another machine running x86_64 and then uploaded the package from my machine (i686).
I'll go over the communitypkg script and see if I missed anything.
Never done that, but my guess is that you didn't remove the arch from the package name. I don't think the community back-end is compatible with makepkg3 package naming.
As I know other TU's do this too, it would be good if someone altered the communitypkg to create a communitypkg64 script that automates this in one command.
Allan
I believe I have a communitypkg64 script still somewhere on my laptop from the times I hadn't x86_64 (don't remember who created it though). I'll check when I'm home.
Ronald
Hello, did you mean firmicus' script? It is available at wget http://ankabut.net/archlinux/communitypkg64 Regards Stefan
On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 10:25 PM, stefan-husmann@t-online.de <stefan-husmann@t-online.de> wrote:
-----Original Message-----
Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2008 19:07:39 +0200 Subject: Re: [aur-general] Missing Packages From: "Ronald van Haren" <pressh@gmail.com style="margin:0px;"> To: "Discussion about the Arch User Repository (AUR)" <aur-general@archlinux.org>
On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 4:13 PM, Allan McRae <allan@archlinux.org> wrote:
Evangelos Foutras wrote:
Allan McRae wrote:
Use the "communitypkg" script. Everything is automated there to prevent problems like this.
Allan
The thing is that I built the package on another machine running x86_64 and then uploaded the package from my machine (i686).
I'll go over the communitypkg script and see if I missed anything.
Never done that, but my guess is that you didn't remove the arch from the package name. I don't think the community back-end is compatible with makepkg3 package naming.
As I know other TU's do this too, it would be good if someone altered the communitypkg to create a communitypkg64 script that automates this in one command.
Allan
I believe I have a communitypkg64 script still somewhere on my laptop from the times I hadn't x86_64 (don't remember who created it though). I'll check when I'm home.
Ronald
Hello,
did you mean firmicus' script? It is available at wget http://ankabut.net/archlinux/communitypkg64
Regards Stefan
yes that is the one :), thanks. Maybe we should add this to the TU wiki, though that would probably require that we actively maintain it so it does not, at some point in the future, stop working correctly? Ronald
Wouldn't it make more sense to integrate it with communitypkg?
Daenyth Blank wrote:
Wouldn't it make more sense to integrate it with communitypkg?
+1 We could introduce the ability to override $CARCH by specifying a $FARCH (I'm not good with naming) in the current environment. Then we could do something like: `FARCH=x86_64 communitypkg' to upload a package to x86_64. Here's an untested patch: http://paste2.org/p/92323 for review.
On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 19:32, Evangelos Foutras <foutrelis@gmail.com> wrote:
Daenyth Blank wrote:
Wouldn't it make more sense to integrate it with communitypkg?
+1
We could introduce the ability to override $CARCH by specifying a $FARCH (I'm not good with naming) in the current environment.
Then we could do something like: `FARCH=x86_64 communitypkg' to upload a package to x86_64.
Here's an untested patch: http://paste2.org/p/92323 for review.
Why not just a command line switch; communitypkg -64?
Daenyth Blank wrote:
On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 19:32, Evangelos Foutras <foutrelis@gmail.com> wrote:
Daenyth Blank wrote:
Wouldn't it make more sense to integrate it with communitypkg?
+1
We could introduce the ability to override $CARCH by specifying a $FARCH (I'm not good with naming) in the current environment.
Then we could do something like: `FARCH=x86_64 communitypkg' to upload a package to x86_64.
Here's an untested patch: http://paste2.org/p/92323 for review.
Why not just a command line switch; communitypkg -64?
That certainly seems to be most in keeping with the KISS philosophy... +1
Daenyth Blank wrote:
On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 19:32, Evangelos Foutras <foutrelis@gmail.com> wrote:
Daenyth Blank wrote:
Wouldn't it make more sense to integrate it with communitypkg?
+1
We could introduce the ability to override $CARCH by specifying a $FARCH (I'm not good with naming) in the current environment.
Then we could do something like: `FARCH=x86_64 communitypkg' to upload a package to x86_64.
Here's an untested patch: http://paste2.org/p/92323 for review.
Why not just a command line switch; communitypkg -64?
Or, what would be even better, is to fix up the [community] repo back-end so it deals with packages with the repo name in them. Then we wouldn't need different ports for uploading for each arch and could just use "CARCH=x86_64 commuitypkg". Much bigger job though and I do not know where the code is... Also, if we have someone actively hacking the [community] back-end, then we could organize the switch to SVN like the main repos and it would be easy to create a [community-testing] repo to solve all the rebuild issues when big changes are in [testing] Allan
On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 6:49 PM, Allan McRae <allan@archlinux.org> wrote:
Or, what would be even better, is to fix up the [community] repo back-end so it deals with packages with the repo name in them. Then we wouldn't need different ports for uploading for each arch and could just use "CARCH=x86_64 commuitypkg". Much bigger job though and I do not know where the code is... Also, if we have someone actively hacking the [community] back-end, then we could organize the switch to SVN like the main repos and it would be easy to create a [community-testing] repo to solve all the rebuild issues when big changes are in [testing]
I've been planning on redoing this backend for a LONG time. It needs to a) switch to svn, b) use the new DB scripts, c) use some version of reporead.py to parse DB files, d) lots more Currently, the community backend is all part of the AUR git repo. I'd like to get this split out into its own repo, and maybe start hacking at it in the near future. If anyone is willing to help, splitting it out from the AUR, and getting all the scripts we use on gerolde together would be a great start.
participants (8)
-
Aaron Griffin
-
Allan McRae
-
aur-notify＠archlinux.org
-
Daenyth Blank
-
Evangelos Foutras
-
Ghost1227
-
Ronald van Haren
-
stefan-husmann＠t-online.de