It appears that my package of fossil-scm https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=30182 is the same as https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=44774 mine has been around longer and only difference I see in the the later package from lavandero is that he/she added "make -j1 bld bld/headers"
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 7:51 PM, Nathan Owens <ndowens.aur@gmail.com> wrote:
It appears that my package of fossil-scm https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=30182 is the same as https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=44774 mine has been around longer and only difference I see in the the later package from lavandero is that he/she added "make -j1 bld bld/headers"
- Your package uses an HTML file instead of a plain text license - The LICENSE is included in the source distribution - Because make -j1 bld/bldheaders wasn't present, your package had a race condition when building with parallel jobs (this has been fixed upstream) - "fossil" is the upstream name, not fossil-scm - If you check the AUR comments, I cover all of dis and offer my pkg to you or whoever is willing (and fossil-scm gets scrapped)
On 02/01/2011 07:24 PM, Andres Perera wrote:
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 7:51 PM, Nathan Owens<ndowens.aur@gmail.com> wrote:
It appears that my package of fossil-scm https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=30182 is the same as https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=44774 mine has been around longer and only difference I see in the the later package from lavandero is that he/she added "make -j1 bld bld/headers"
- Your package uses an HTML file instead of a plain text license - The LICENSE is included in the source distribution - Because make -j1 bld/bldheaders wasn't present, your package had a race condition when building with parallel jobs (this has been fixed upstream) - "fossil" is the upstream name, not fossil-scm - If you check the AUR comments, I cover all of dis and offer my pkg to you or whoever is willing (and fossil-scm gets scrapped) If fossil-scm is to be deleted, you can keep fossil or I will take it if you don't want it. Either way works.
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 8:57 PM, Nathan Owens <ndowens.aur@gmail.com> wrote:
If fossil-scm is to be deleted, you can keep fossil or I will take it if you don't want it. Either way works.
Cool, I've disowned it
On 02/01/2011 07:30 PM, Andres Perera wrote:
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 8:57 PM, Nathan Owens<ndowens.aur@gmail.com> wrote:
If fossil-scm is to be deleted, you can keep fossil or I will take it if you don't want it. Either way works. Cool, I've disowned it Are you sure you don't want it? I don't want to be rude or anything. To a TU: Please delete fossil-scm https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=30182
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 9:02 PM, Nathan Owens <ndowens.aur@gmail.com> wrote:
Are you sure you don't want it? I don't want to be rude or anything. To a TU: Please delete fossil-scm https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=30182
Yep, I'm sure :) I forgot I even had it. You updated to the latest snapshot and I wasn't even aware of its existance.
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 3:32 AM, Nathan Owens <ndowens.aur@gmail.com> wrote:
To a TU: Please delete fossil-scm https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=30182
Removed, thanks.
participants (4)
-
Andres Perera
-
Andres Perera
-
Evangelos Foutras
-
Nathan Owens