February 2011 - Aur-general - lists.archlinux.org

[aur-general] Delete Request
by speps 12 Feb '11

12 Feb '11

Hi, please delete openoctave-midi-git ==> http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=28558 oom ==> http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=45905 they are duplicates of oomidi-git ==> http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=46388 oomidi ==> http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=46430 Just talked with openoctave devs, oomidi is the right name for distributing. Thanks - speps -

2 1

Re: [aur-general] AUR & Copyright
by Thomas S Hatch 11 Feb '11

11 Feb '11

You raise a good point, I would think that we would need to post something on the submit page stating the copyright nature. My brothers are lawyers, I will check with them as to what the right thing to do is. -Thomas S Hatch On Feb 6, 2011 10:49 AM, "Xyne" <xyne(a)archlinux.ca> wrote: > Eric Waller wrote: > >> I am not a lawyer and I generally tune out all license flame wars. >> That said, PKGBUILDS generally do not contain copyright or license >> declarations. Unless I am mistaken, that means someone who comes into >> possession of a PKGBUILD does not have the right to republish it. >> >> As a minimum, I think Arch should get a nod from the creator of a >> PKGBUILD prior to absorbing it into the colective -- It might help >> avoid any misunderstandings. > > What is the legal status of files submitted to the AUR? I have always assumed > that anything uploaded to the AUR is automatically licensed under the GPL or > something similar, in the same way that content contributed to the wiki is. > > I can't find anything that states this on the AUR site, which is a potentially > calamitous legal oversight. > > The legal issue should be cleared up. If we needed to obtain explicit > permission from every contributor then the AUR would cease to be useful. You > would not be able to adopt and update PKGBUILDs without permission, and you > would need to enable users to delete their own PKGBUILDs when they decide to > withdraw permission. >

19 32

[aur-general] delete streamtuner2-plugins
by widomaker2k7＠gmail.com 11 Feb '11

11 Feb '11

Hello, do you delete a package streamtuner2-plugins because the developer has changed site for sourceforge, the plugins don't exist. [1] http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=39226

1 0

[aur-general] Standardized CPAN Package Versions
by Xyne 11 Feb '11

11 Feb '11

Hi, I have CC'd this to aur-general as this concerns all CPAN packagers on Arch. CPAN package versions are a mess on Arch Linux. It seems that many if not most CPAN packagers on Arch are unaware of how CPAN deals with versions and thus they do not correctly translate the CPAN version. Most of the time a naive translation is used instead, and this prevents Pacman from working correctly. To give an example, CPAN considers "1.15" to be a later version than "1.23.0", whereas Pacman will consider the latter version the newer version. This is because "1.15" is short for "1.150" on CPAN, whereas "1.23.0" is short for "1.023.0". This can be confirmed using the "version" module[1]. I have written a simple Perl script[2] that addresses this issue.* It accepts CPAN versions as command-line arguments and prints out standardized Pacman package versions. The package versions enable Pacman to correctly compare CPAN packages, e.g. when resolving minimal dependencies. I propose that the script be packaged and made an official tool for Perl package developers.** It should also be included on the Perl Package Guidelines wiki page[3]. I hope that this will be seriously considered as it addresses a real issue. Tools that generate CPAN packages for Pacman (e.g. Bauerbill) cannot work properly when there is no consistency in how Arch packages are versioned. Please note as well that this is completely separate from my previous (and continued) contention regarding the "provides" array of CPAN packages. Regards, Xyne [1]: http://search.cpan.org/~jpeacock/version-0.88/ [2]: http://xyne.archlinux.ca/scripts/pacman/ver_cpan2pacman [3]: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Perl_Package_Guidelines * The script only depends on Perl. The name and license are preliminary. I will gladly change both to something more suitable. * I would be willing to maintain it, but an official tool should probably be included in [core] or [extra], not [community].

4 8

[aur-general] AIDE out-of-date
by Tony C 10 Feb '11

10 Feb '11

Hi, AIDE has been flagged out-of-date since July of 2010. I went ahead and tidied up the PKGBUILD for the most recent version of AIDE. Please update this in AUR. https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=22591 Kind Regards, -- Tony

5 7

[aur-general] Please delete gimp-save-for-web
by Marcel Korpel 10 Feb '11

10 Feb '11

Hi, Can someone please delete gimp-save-for-web [1], as it is a duplicate of gimp-plugin-saveforweb [2] (though it has a nice package ID ;). Thanks! Regards, Marcel [1] http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=20000 [2] http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=13473

2 1

[aur-general] How to handle installers in PKGBUILDs
by Michael Schubert 10 Feb '11

10 Feb '11

Hi, I am already maintaining a couple of PKGBUILDs and wanted to add one for CellDesigner, which is used to model biochemical pathways. The download is only available as binary package with its own installer. Now, I thought that I could use the installer inside a PKGBUILD with $pkgdir as root. However, the installer cross-references some files in others with absolute paths, i.e. when the package is installed it still links to the build dir instead of the system dir. Because of the way the cross-refs are inserted, simple sed'ing these does not work. The obvious solution would be to use fakeroot/chroot in the $pkgdir and use to to emulate a root directory structure. My question now is: (1) am I on the right track and (2) is there any standard way to do this in PKGBUILDs? I couldn't find any sample PKGBUILDs concerning this issue and the ArchWiki contains no information either. Any help would be appreciated. Cheers, Michael

4 6

[aur-general] Deletion Request
by Fergus Symon 10 Feb '11

10 Feb '11

Hi, The package latex-minted (http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=45813) is provided by texlive-latexextra, and I believe the author wants it deleted. Thanks, Fergus

2 1

Re: [aur-general] How to handle installers in PKGBUILDs
by jesse jaara 10 Feb '11

10 Feb '11

On 9.2.2011 14.08, "Michael Schubert" <mschu.dev(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > I am already maintaining a couple of PKGBUILDs and wanted to add one > for CellDesigner, which is used to model biochemical pathways. The download > is only available as binary package with its own installer. > > Now, I thought that I could use the installer inside a PKGBUILD with $pkgdir > as root. However, the installer cross-references some files in others with > absolute paths, i.e. when the package is installed it still links to the > build dir instead of the system dir. Because of the way the cross-refs are > inserted, simple sed'ing these does not work. > > The obvious solution would be to use fakeroot/chroot in the $pkgdir and use > to to emulate a root directory structure. My question now is: (1) am I on > the right track and (2) is there any standard way to do this in PKGBUILDs? > > I couldn't find any sample PKGBUILDs concerning this issue and the ArchWiki > contains no information either. > Any help would be appreciated. > > Cheers, Michael Usually the installers are shell acripts with a binary tar.gz blob in the end of the file. This can be cat:ed from the file and piped to tar. This is what the installer does Open it and you see how to cat the contents and what else might ne needed

3 3

Re: [aur-general] Moving packages to Community
by Nicky726 09 Feb '11

09 Feb '11

Hi, fellow Archers, I feel a need to express my support to the opinion stated by Greg Imreh and Thomas Hatch. There is an unique relation between the contributor/maintainer and the PKGBUILD. This relation calls for respect. So please TUs/devs act as people and show it by letting first the contributor/maintainer know, that you are about to adopt a PKGBUILD to the binary repo. Surely adoption in the repo by itself is greater good for the package and Arch and therefor goal of every maintainer, so there hardly will be objections from the maintainer, but just taking it without a word is very rude. There would be no package to adopt, if there was not for the AUR contributor/maintainer. To Angel Velasquez: the nature of the relation is not like an ownership, but more like an authorship. Is it that much to show your respect to the author by a polite question? After all we are people, not mindless machines nor animals. Nicky -- Don't it always seem to go That you don't know what you've got Till it's gone (Joni Mitchell)

14 16