[aur-general] Please delete a lot of packages
Hi, please do such a thing. 1) xorg-server-gentoo (delete; unnecessary (the patches that were originally used with this package have all been pulled upstream over the years) and not being updated): http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=15089 2) songbird-nightly (delete; unnecessary ('songbird-auto-nightly' actually works as it should) and not being updated): http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=13193 3) songbird-nightly-bin (delete; unnecessary ('songbird-auto-nightly' actually works as it should and uses precompiled binaries) and not being updated): http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=32932 4) songbird-nightly-latest (delete; unnecessary ('songbird-auto-nightly' actually works as it should) and not being updated): http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=28885 5) songbird-svn (delete; should replace songbird with its PKGBUILD (of course after changing the pkgname to just 'songbird')): http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=23968 6) songbird (orphan/replace with 'songbird-svn'; doesn't work - 'songbird-svn' does. Both aren't needed since there is a separate 'songbird-bin' package using the precompiled binaries. This can of course be done the other way around too so that 'songbird' would be removed but maybe that shouldn't be done.. I don't know, that's why you are doing this - not me): http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=7286 Thanks for deleting a lot of packages, 'Det'
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 9:04 PM, Det <nimetonmaili@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi, please do such a thing.
1) xorg-server-gentoo (delete; unnecessary (the patches that were originally used with this package have all been pulled upstream over the years) and not being updated): http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=15089
2) songbird-nightly (delete; unnecessary ('songbird-auto-nightly' actually works as it should) and not being updated): http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=13193
3) songbird-nightly-bin (delete; unnecessary ('songbird-auto-nightly' actually works as it should and uses precompiled binaries) and not being updated): http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=32932
4) songbird-nightly-latest (delete; unnecessary ('songbird-auto-nightly' actually works as it should) and not being updated): http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=28885
5) songbird-svn (delete; should replace songbird with its PKGBUILD (of course after changing the pkgname to just 'songbird')): http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=23968
6) songbird (orphan/replace with 'songbird-svn'; doesn't work - 'songbird-svn' does. Both aren't needed since there is a separate 'songbird-bin' package using the precompiled binaries. This can of course be done the other way around too so that 'songbird' would be removed but maybe that shouldn't be done.. I don't know, that's why you are doing this - not me): http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=7286
Thanks for deleting a lot of packages, 'Det'
Deleted xorg-server-gentoo; will go through the songbird mess now.
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 10:52 PM, Evangelos Foutras <foutrelis@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 9:04 PM, Det <nimetonmaili@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi, please do such a thing.
1) xorg-server-gentoo (delete; unnecessary (the patches that were originally used with this package have all been pulled upstream over the years) and not being updated): http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=15089
2) songbird-nightly (delete; unnecessary ('songbird-auto-nightly' actually works as it should) and not being updated): http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=13193
3) songbird-nightly-bin (delete; unnecessary ('songbird-auto-nightly' actually works as it should and uses precompiled binaries) and not being updated): http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=32932
4) songbird-nightly-latest (delete; unnecessary ('songbird-auto-nightly' actually works as it should) and not being updated): http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=28885
5) songbird-svn (delete; should replace songbird with its PKGBUILD (of course after changing the pkgname to just 'songbird')): http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=23968
6) songbird (orphan/replace with 'songbird-svn'; doesn't work - 'songbird-svn' does. Both aren't needed since there is a separate 'songbird-bin' package using the precompiled binaries. This can of course be done the other way around too so that 'songbird' would be removed but maybe that shouldn't be done.. I don't know, that's why you are doing this - not me): http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=7286
Thanks for deleting a lot of packages, 'Det'
Deleted xorg-server-gentoo; will go through the songbird mess now.
I've only deleted songbird-nightly-latest, the rest seem fine to keep (i.e.: they have maintainers, were updated within a year and have enough votes).
On 9/9/10, Evangelos Foutras <foutrelis@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 10:52 PM, Evangelos Foutras <foutrelis@gmail.com> wrote:
Deleted xorg-server-gentoo; will go through the songbird mess now.
I've only deleted songbird-nightly-latest, the rest seem fine to keep (i.e.: they have maintainers, were updated within a year and have enough votes).
Ok, thank you but 'songbird' and 'songbird-svn' are the same package so the other one should be removed - with the addition that 'songbird-svn's PKGBUILD works better. 'songbird-nightly' and 'songbird-nightly-bin' are also the same package - with the addition that 'songbird-auto-nightly' is always up to date as it automatically checks for the latest nightly version. Sure, they do have a lot of votes but that's just because they've been around for so long, while 'songbird-auto-nightly' was created less than a month ago. Det
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 8:52 AM, Det <nimetonmaili@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/9/10, Evangelos Foutras <foutrelis@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 10:52 PM, Evangelos Foutras <foutrelis@gmail.com> wrote:
Deleted xorg-server-gentoo; will go through the songbird mess now.
I've only deleted songbird-nightly-latest, the rest seem fine to keep (i.e.: they have maintainers, were updated within a year and have enough votes).
Ok, thank you but 'songbird' and 'songbird-svn' are the same package so the other one should be removed - with the addition that 'songbird-svn's PKGBUILD works better.
'songbird-nightly' and 'songbird-nightly-bin' are also the same package - with the addition that 'songbird-auto-nightly' is always up to date as it automatically checks for the latest nightly version.
Sure, they do have a lot of votes but that's just because they've been around for so long, while 'songbird-auto-nightly' was created less than a month ago.
Det
Sorry, I'm having a hard time deciding what goes and what stays. If another TU wants to jump in and handle this request, please do.
On 10 September 2010 13:09, Evangelos Foutras <foutrelis@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 8:52 AM, Det <nimetonmaili@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/9/10, Evangelos Foutras <foutrelis@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 10:52 PM, Evangelos Foutras <foutrelis@gmail.com> wrote:
Deleted xorg-server-gentoo; will go through the songbird mess now.
I've only deleted songbird-nightly-latest, the rest seem fine to keep (i.e.: they have maintainers, were updated within a year and have enough votes).
Ok, thank you but 'songbird' and 'songbird-svn' are the same package so the other one should be removed - with the addition that 'songbird-svn's PKGBUILD works better.
'songbird-nightly' and 'songbird-nightly-bin' are also the same package - with the addition that 'songbird-auto-nightly' is always up to date as it automatically checks for the latest nightly version.
Sure, they do have a lot of votes but that's just because they've been around for so long, while 'songbird-auto-nightly' was created less than a month ago.
Det
Sorry, I'm having a hard time deciding what goes and what stays.
If another TU wants to jump in and handle this request, please do.
Wow, what a mess. For now I would certainly leave the songbird-svn. It has correct name and it seems to be quite good PKGBUILD. I'd prefer if the songbird-auto-nightly was renamed to the songbird-nightly-bin and then removed. I think songbird should be removed, because it's in fact the same as songbird-svn. I don't see any reason to keep it because it seems that they do not release any source tarballs. However it has just too much votes to remove it. Lukas
On 9/10/10, Lukáš Jirkovský <l.jirkovsky@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10 September 2010 13:09, Evangelos Foutras <foutrelis@gmail.com> wrote:
Sorry, I'm having a hard time deciding what goes and what stays.
If another TU wants to jump in and handle this request, please do.
Wow, what a mess.
For now I would certainly leave the songbird-svn. It has correct name and it seems to be quite good PKGBUILD.
I'd prefer if the songbird-auto-nightly was renamed to the songbird-nightly-bin and then removed.
I think songbird should be removed, because it's in fact the same as songbird-svn. I don't see any reason to keep it because it seems that they do not release any source tarballs. However it has just too much votes to remove it.
Lukas
Jesus, well the nicest thing to do then would be to first replace "songbird-nightly" with "songbird-auto-nightly" and _then_ delete: "songbird", "songbird-auto-nightly" and "songbird-nightly-bin". "Songbird" does indeed have a lot of votes, which is just too bad, but if "the binary version of Songbird" has to be "songbird-bin", then "the SVN version of Songbird" has to also be "songbird-svn"... unless that logic would need the developers to release a versioned source too... which they don't. Chrissake, Det
On Sat 11 Sep 2010 20:36 +0300, Det wrote:
On 9/10/10, Lukáš Jirkovský <l.jirkovsky@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10 September 2010 13:09, Evangelos Foutras <foutrelis@gmail.com> wrote:
Sorry, I'm having a hard time deciding what goes and what stays.
If another TU wants to jump in and handle this request, please do.
Wow, what a mess.
For now I would certainly leave the songbird-svn. It has correct name and it seems to be quite good PKGBUILD.
I'd prefer if the songbird-auto-nightly was renamed to the songbird-nightly-bin and then removed.
I think songbird should be removed, because it's in fact the same as songbird-svn. I don't see any reason to keep it because it seems that they do not release any source tarballs. However it has just too much votes to remove it.
Lukas
Jesus, well the nicest thing to do then would be to first replace "songbird-nightly" with "songbird-auto-nightly" and _then_ delete: "songbird", "songbird-auto-nightly" and "songbird-nightly-bin".
"Songbird" does indeed have a lot of votes, which is just too bad, but if "the binary version of Songbird" has to be "songbird-bin", then "the SVN version of Songbird" has to also be "songbird-svn"... unless that logic would need the developers to release a versioned source too... which they don't.
Some projects might not have tarball releases. So in that case the package name could remain as the project's name without having to append -scm. Heh, or maybe we should start naming all packages based on how the sources are fetched.
Excerpts from Det's message of 2010-09-11 19:36:05 +0200:
On 9/10/10, Lukáš Jirkovský <l.jirkovsky@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10 September 2010 13:09, Evangelos Foutras <foutrelis@gmail.com> wrote:
Sorry, I'm having a hard time deciding what goes and what stays.
If another TU wants to jump in and handle this request, please do.
Wow, what a mess.
For now I would certainly leave the songbird-svn. It has correct name and it seems to be quite good PKGBUILD.
I'd prefer if the songbird-auto-nightly was renamed to the songbird-nightly-bin and then removed.
I think songbird should be removed, because it's in fact the same as songbird-svn. I don't see any reason to keep it because it seems that they do not release any source tarballs. However it has just too much votes to remove it.
Lukas
Jesus, well the nicest thing to do then would be to first replace "songbird-nightly" with "songbird-auto-nightly" and _then_ delete: "songbird", "songbird-auto-nightly" and "songbird-nightly-bin".
"Songbird" does indeed have a lot of votes, which is just too bad, but if "the binary version of Songbird" has to be "songbird-bin", then "the SVN version of Songbird" has to also be "songbird-svn"... unless that logic would need the developers to release a versioned source too... which they don't.
Chrissake, Det
I know little about it, but if I'm not wrong, songbird for linux isn't developed anymore? So what does it matter? -- Philipp -- "Wir stehen selbst enttäuscht und sehn betroffen / Den Vorhang zu und alle Fragen offen." Bertolt Brecht, Der gute Mensch von Sezuan
On 12 September 2010 00:39, Philipp Überbacher <hollunder@lavabit.com> wrote:
Excerpts from Det's message of 2010-09-11 19:36:05 +0200:
On 9/10/10, Lukáš Jirkovský <l.jirkovsky@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10 September 2010 13:09, Evangelos Foutras <foutrelis@gmail.com> wrote:
Sorry, I'm having a hard time deciding what goes and what stays.
If another TU wants to jump in and handle this request, please do.
Wow, what a mess.
For now I would certainly leave the songbird-svn. It has correct name and it seems to be quite good PKGBUILD.
I'd prefer if the songbird-auto-nightly was renamed to the songbird-nightly-bin and then removed.
I think songbird should be removed, because it's in fact the same as songbird-svn. I don't see any reason to keep it because it seems that they do not release any source tarballs. However it has just too much votes to remove it.
Lukas
Jesus, well the nicest thing to do then would be to first replace "songbird-nightly" with "songbird-auto-nightly" and _then_ delete: "songbird", "songbird-auto-nightly" and "songbird-nightly-bin".
"Songbird" does indeed have a lot of votes, which is just too bad, but if "the binary version of Songbird" has to be "songbird-bin", then "the SVN version of Songbird" has to also be "songbird-svn"... unless that logic would need the developers to release a versioned source too... which they don't.
Chrissake, Det
I know little about it, but if I'm not wrong, songbird for linux isn't developed anymore? So what does it matter? -- Philipp
-- "Wir stehen selbst enttäuscht und sehn betroffen / Den Vorhang zu und alle Fragen offen." Bertolt Brecht, Der gute Mensch von Sezuan
It seems you're right. It should be replaced by Nightingale (http://getnightingale.com/), Songbird's fork.
On 9/12/10, Lukáš Jirkovský <l.jirkovsky@gmail.com> wrote:
On 12 September 2010 00:39, Philipp Überbacher <hollunder@lavabit.com> wrote:
I know little about it, but if I'm not wrong, songbird for linux isn't developed anymore? So what does it matter?
Actually it is, but only in the SVN from which they also release those (these days only i686) precompiled nightly builds.
It seems you're right. It should be replaced by Nightingale (http://getnightingale.com/), Songbird's fork. Great, but as they say on their front page no releases are available yet. Until then it would be a good thing to clean up the search results for "songbird".
On Sun, Sep 12, 2010 at 10:05:18AM +0200, Lukáš Jirkovský wrote:
On 12 September 2010 00:39, Philipp Überbacher <hollunder@lavabit.com> wrote:
It seems you're right. It should be replaced by Nightingale (http://getnightingale.com/), Songbird's fork.
There was a discussion about this not too long ago. I was planning on packaging it as soon as they can get a release out.
participants (6)
-
Brad Fanella
-
Det
-
Evangelos Foutras
-
Loui Chang
-
Lukáš Jirkovský
-
Philipp Überbacher