[aur-general] lib32-openssl
May [1] package be deleted and merge the votes and comments over to [2]? The reason is that [2] compiles straight from the source. [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=37007 [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=40573 Thanks, Taylor Lookabaugh
I have orphaned the package[1] by the way, after updating and then realizing there was a better alternative PKGBUILD available yesterday. Taylor Lookabaugh On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 19:04, Taylor Lookabaugh < jesus.christ.i.love@gmail.com> wrote:
May [1] package be deleted and merge the votes and comments over to [2]?
The reason is that [2] compiles straight from the source.
[1] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=37007 [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=40573
Thanks, Taylor Lookabaugh
2012/3/5 Taylor Lookabaugh <jesus.christ.i.love@gmail.com>:
I have orphaned the package[1] by the way, after updating and then realizing there was a better alternative PKGBUILD available yesterday.
Taylor Lookabaugh
On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 19:04, Taylor Lookabaugh < jesus.christ.i.love@gmail.com> wrote:
May [1] package be deleted and merge the votes and comments over to [2]?
The reason is that [2] compiles straight from the source.
[1] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=37007 [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=40573
Thanks, Taylor Lookabaugh
IMO, lib32-openssl-compatibility [1] should be deleted as the version is the same. Also, the other one's name, lib32-openssl098 [2], is more suggestive. Rafael
Following up on this, any TUs care to respond on this topic? Thanks, Taylor Lookabaugh On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 02:05, rafael ff1 <rafael.f.f1@gmail.com> wrote:
2012/3/5 Taylor Lookabaugh <jesus.christ.i.love@gmail.com>:
I have orphaned the package[1] by the way, after updating and then realizing there was a better alternative PKGBUILD available yesterday.
Taylor Lookabaugh
On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 19:04, Taylor Lookabaugh < jesus.christ.i.love@gmail.com> wrote:
May [1] package be deleted and merge the votes and comments over to [2]?
The reason is that [2] compiles straight from the source.
[1] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=37007 [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=40573
Thanks, Taylor Lookabaugh
IMO, lib32-openssl-compatibility [1] should be deleted as the version is the same. Also, the other one's name, lib32-openssl098 [2], is more suggestive.
Rafael
On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 06:51:38PM -0800, Taylor Lookabaugh wrote:
Following up on this, any TUs care to respond on this topic?
Thanks, Taylor Lookabaugh
Despite the top post, I've deleted lib32-openssl-compat and merged in into lib32-openssl098. d
participants (3)
-
Dave Reisner
-
rafael ff1
-
Taylor Lookabaugh