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

[aur-general] Delete Request
by Sara Fauzia 08 Feb '11

08 Feb '11

Please remove fbpdf: http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=46240 I've replaced it with fbpdf-git: http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=46304 I uploaded the package as fbpdf, but it is a git package, so to fix my mistake, I created the fbpdf-git package. Sara -- "Nothing is too wonderful to be true, if it be consistent with the laws of nature." ~Michael Faraday

2 1

[aur-general] Disown request
by rafael ff1 08 Feb '11

08 Feb '11

Hi there. I tried to have the maintainer of *lib32-gtk-engines* and *lib32-libidl2* to fix the PKGBUILDs to comply Multilib, but got no answer by email for 10 days now. I got it ready to upload. Please disown these 2 packages? Thanks

2 4

[aur-general] Moving packages to Community
by Martti Kühne 07 Feb '11

07 Feb '11

Hello official and inofficial maintainers and AUR devs. Following the discussion in aur-general, I think some automation could solve many issues at once here. Justin Davis' community-blacklist patch is an approach in about the right direction.... although in relation to the discussion concerning these prevailing [more-official repo] adoption issues, it seems that it does not yet go far enough at the moment. There should be a redirection or at least a [we're-now-official] error page showing sort of "congratulations and sorry for the late notice" to the yet uninformed aur maintainer, if his package is not reachable any more because it was adopted in said [more-official repo] - along with this could be displayed the comments of the former package. As well, it could just become invisible in the package's search, and marked with a "I saw this" button in the former AUR maintainer's package list. When that button is clicked, the package would sink quietly into the official repo without anyone needing to complain. The only hurdle remaining is, that a package isn't up for deletion any more when it gets adopted to [more-official repo], because that could just be automated by the repo's backend maybe? I'm probably going to download the aur source inclusively Justin's approach to look into this a bit further. Even though my development skills aren't exactly in line with such a task, and if someone feels more confident, one may look into it h{im,er}self. I'd like to hear your comments on this well. cheers! mar77i

2 1

Re: [aur-general] TU Resignation
by Peter Lewis 07 Feb '11

07 Feb '11

Hi Andrea, On Monday 07 February 2011 19:25:03 Andrea Scarpino wrote: > Hi TUs, > it's my time to leave the [community] repo. Ah! Well, thanks for all your work. More time to focus on KDE in [extra], eh? :-D > I orphaned more packages in the last year and now I orphan the rest: > - choqok > - quoauth > - rekonq I'm happy to take over these, since I occasionally use / build them anyway. Cheers, Pete.

1 0

Re: [aur-general] TU Resignation
by Ike Devolder 07 Feb '11

07 Feb '11

Op maandag 7 februari 2011 20:25:03 schreef Andrea Scarpino: > Hi TUs, > it's my time to leave the [community] repo. > > I orphaned more packages in the last year and now I orphan the rest: > - choqok > - quoauth > - oxygen-gtk > - rekonq > - wtf > > Has been an honour to work with all you guys. > Thank you all. > > thx for the great packages you've been delivering us also for the support given to us when we were in trouble greetz Ike ( aka BlackEagle )

1 0

[aur-general] TU Resignation
by Andrea Scarpino 07 Feb '11

07 Feb '11

Hi TUs, it's my time to leave the [community] repo. I orphaned more packages in the last year and now I orphan the rest: - choqok - quoauth - oxygen-gtk - rekonq - wtf Has been an honour to work with all you guys. Thank you all. -- Andrea

1 0

[aur-general] Moving packages to Community
by Gergely Imreh 07 Feb '11

07 Feb '11

Hi, Recently a couple of my packages have been moved to Community but the process feels a little uneasy to me. My impression is that AUR is treated as a "second class" source of packages compared to the official repos. Not surprising, of course, so many packages have problems. This is also underlined by the fact that yaourt and other AUR managers are not allowed in the official repos, as "not to give the impression that AUR is official" (paraphrasing what I've read before). If there is indeed this divide, it feels more than little weird, that popular packages are just taken in to Community without even asking the current managers. It gives me the message that "AUR has no value, except when we say it has, at which time thanks for your work but now bugger off". I beg your pardon, if it comes through too harsh. I wouldn't have objected to have those packages moved. I, however, object to unilateral decisions. My proposition is: could it be a policy to check with the maintainer first before initiating a move? If someone wants to keep a package then they should be able to, especially since they could not have been doing such a a bad job if their package has become popular. Cheers, Greg

19 33

[aur-general] Orphaned ruby packages
by Massimiliano Torromeo 07 Feb '11

07 Feb '11

1 0

[aur-general] AUR & Copyright
by Nicky726 07 Feb '11

07 Feb '11

If I may add my two cents, I would go for GPL for PKGBUILDs, as it ensures stuff remains OSS. Though some broader discussion/voting may be good. And a compromise in form of selection from OSS licences when uploading, defaulting to one could not be that hard to implement. Nicky -- Don't it always seem to go That you don't know what you've got Till it's gone (Joni Mitchell)

3 2

[aur-general] License installation
by rafael ff1 07 Feb '11

07 Feb '11

Hi there. I read Licenses <https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Licenses> and PKGBUILD<https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/PKGBUILD>pages at Archwiki and I've been wondering: case a software's license is one the common ones (ex: GPL), if the PKGBUILD should do some kind of reference (symlink) from /usr/share/licenses/common/GPL/ to /usr/share/licenses/${pkgname}/ or.. do nothing, maybe? Thanks

3 4