On 04/02/2013 02:35 PM, Jelle van der Waa 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). Only a build() method is deprecated, but only a package() is perfectly fine. I'm not really sure how this should be resolved, mostly because I wouldn't pick one over the other right now. I agree.

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:

https://copy.com?r=NXWnIn

Imo the 'copy' package is perfectly fine. The other package installs in /opt which isn't needed.

Actually both packages have good and bad qualities that the other doesn't; although 'copy-agent' is much better for reasons stated above, it doesn't have the systemd service file or the license terms file that 'copy' does. Anyway, I'll submit a PKGBUILD here that incorporates the good of both ASAP.

On 04/02/2013 10:54 PM, Limao Luo wrote:

On 04/02/2013 11:59 AM, 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:

https://copy.com?r=NXWnIn

Here's a git repo of all the source files after fixing them up: https://github.com/luolimao/PKGBUILDs/tree/copy-agent/copy-agent By the way, I think copy-agent is a better name in this case, but it's up to the maintainers, I guess.

On 2014-05-01 18:56 +0200 Sam S. wrote:

On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 5:59 PM, 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'm not really sure how this should be resolved, mostly because I wouldn't pick one over the other right now.

A year later, it's now clear that "copy-agent" is the package that should be kept, since... - it works - it is well maintained (updates appear shortly after upstream releases) - it even installs systemd units and browser plugins

The "copy" package should be deleted, as... - it is broken - it has been flagged out-of-date for 10 months now with not reaction from the maintainer - it is badly named

Can one of TUs please take care of this? Thanks!

done, thanks