August 2012 - Aur-general - lists.archlinux.org

[aur-general] Removal: fcitx-keyboard and fcitx-keyboard-git
by Justin Wong 14 Aug '12

14 Aug '12

fcitx-keyboard has been merged into fcitx's main package since fcitx 4.2.4. https://www.csslayer.info/wordpress/fcitx-dev/fcitx-4-2-4/ -- Open Source,Open Mind Blog: http://bigeagle.me/ E-mail: bigeagle(a)xdlinux.info

3 2

[aur-general] Deletion request: xournal-image-patched
by Egon Geerardyn 14 Aug '12

14 Aug '12

I think xournal-image-patched [1] can be deleted as it is outdated and its main reason for existence was including images, which has been included in the latest version in community [2] (as mentioned by the former maintainer in the comments on AUR [1]). [1] AUR xournal-image-patched: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=38375&detail=1 [2] xournal in community: http://www.archlinux.org/packages/?sort=&q=xournal&maintainer=&last_update=… Thanks! Egon Geerardyn

2 1

[aur-general] Signoff report for [community-testing]
by Arch Website Notification 14 Aug '12

14 Aug '12

=== Signoff report for [community-testing] === https://www.archlinux.org/packages/signoffs/ There are currently: * 0 new packages in last 24 hours * 0 known bad packages * 0 packages not accepting signoffs * 0 fully signed off packages * 18 packages missing signoffs * 9 packages older than 14 days (Note: the word 'package' as used here refers to packages as grouped by pkgbase, architecture, and repository; e.g., one PKGBUILD produces one package per architecture, even if it is a split package.) == Incomplete signoffs for [community] (16 total) == * systemd-arch-units-20120704-2 (any) 0/2 signoffs * cdfs-2.6.27-26 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * ndiswrapper-1.57-18 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * open-vm-tools-modules-2012.05.21-6 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * r8168-8.031.00-9 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * rt3562sta-2.4.1.1-12 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * slmodem-2.9.11-67 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * vhba-module-20120422-7 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * virtualbox-modules-4.1.18-6 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * cdfs-2.6.27-26 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * ndiswrapper-1.57-18 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * open-vm-tools-modules-2012.05.21-6 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * r8168-8.031.00-9 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * rt3562sta-2.4.1.1-12 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * vhba-module-20120422-7 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * virtualbox-modules-4.1.18-6 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs == Incomplete signoffs for [unknown] (2 total) == * tp_smapi-0.41-5 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * tp_smapi-0.41-5 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs == All packages in [community-testing] for more than 14 days (9 total) == * virtualbox-modules-4.1.18-6 (x86_64), since 2012-07-30 * virtualbox-modules-4.1.18-6 (i686), since 2012-07-30 * slmodem-2.9.11-67 (i686), since 2012-07-30 * open-vm-tools-modules-2012.05.21-6 (x86_64), since 2012-07-30 * open-vm-tools-modules-2012.05.21-6 (i686), since 2012-07-30 * cdfs-2.6.27-26 (i686), since 2012-07-30 * cdfs-2.6.27-26 (x86_64), since 2012-07-30 * ndiswrapper-1.57-18 (i686), since 2012-07-31 * ndiswrapper-1.57-18 (x86_64), since 2012-07-31 == Top five in signoffs in last 24 hours == 1. tomegun - 2 signoffs

1 0

[aur-general] Microchip Compilers Cleanup
by BxS 14 Aug '12

14 Aug '12

Hi TUs, I think is time for a cleanup in microchip compilers that I maintain, lets start: a) Merge hitech-picc_bin[1] and hitech-picc-18_bin[2] to microchip-mplabxc8-bin[3]. Microchip bought [1] and [2] but now they are now legacy compilers, Microchip decide to make [1]+[2]=[3], microchip-mplabxc8-bin[3] are just the new versions of [1] and [2] packaged together with some small additions. The code for [1]&[2] should just compile in [3], if not the changes needed are very minimal, like in a normal new compiler version. [1]https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=52776 [2]https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=52777 [3]https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=57911 b) Merge microchip-mplabc32_bin[4] to microchip-mplabxc32-bin[5]. [4] are now a legacy compiler, Microchip decide to make [4]->[5], microchip-mplabxc32-bin[5] are just the new versions of [4], with some additions like C++ support. The code for [4] should just compile in [5], if not the changes needed are minimal, like in a new version of a compiler. Also [4] for Linux don't appear any more in any Microchip webpage. [4]https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=52726 [5]https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=57912 c) Delete hitech-dspicc-bin[6]. [6] are a legacy compiler for a long time, Microchip in [6] page says: "Microchip highly recommends the MPLAB C Compiler for PIC24 and dsPIC (SW006012) for new designs." Note that the recommended (SW006012) are this days already also a legacy compiler, the (SW006012) have been replaced by microchip-mplabxc16-bin[7], so you can have an idea. Also [6] have 0 votes. [6]https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=54315 [7]https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=59174 d) Delete hitech-picc32-bin[8]. [8] are a legacy compiler for a long time, Microchip in [8] page says: "Microchip highly recommends the MPLAB C Compiler for PIC32 (SW006015) for new designs." Note that the recommended (SW006015)=microchip-mplabc32_bin[4] are this days already also a legacy compiler, as you can see in my b) merge request, so you can have an idea. [8]https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=54315 Sorry for all the requests, thanks for everything. Best Regards, BxS

2 2

[aur-general] Dropping wvstreams/wvdial from [community]
by Florian Pritz 13 Aug '12

13 Aug '12

wvstreams stopped building with gcc 4.7, upstream is dead for ~2 years now and gentoo's patches don't seem to fix stack magic checking properly. Current trunk (not pushed to the repos) gets me a different error than the one reported[1], but it still fails after pppd has been started: > wvdial: utils/wvtask.cc:304: static int WvTaskMan::yield(int): Assertion `*current_task->stack_magic == 0x123678' failed. Unless someone adopts wvstreams and wvdial I'll drop them to AUR next week. [1]: https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/31096 -- Florian Pritz

2 2

[aur-general] Mozc
by Tony Olagbaiye 13 Aug '12

13 Aug '12

Hi all! Can I request that a TU add Mozc to the community repo? It has 32 votes, which is plenty above the guideline (25), and it takes quite a while to build. It is actively developed, by Google employees themselves, but is under the BSD License. It would be much appreciated if someone would! -- Tony

3 2

[aur-general] ongoing TU inactivity for Chris Brannon
by Chris Brannon 13 Aug '12

13 Aug '12

I'm still inactive, and it looks like I will remain so until mid-September. Things should have settled down for me by then. Thanks for all the kind words from people in the community. -- Chris

1 0

[aur-general] Signoff report for [community-testing]
by Arch Website Notification 13 Aug '12

13 Aug '12

=== Signoff report for [community-testing] === https://www.archlinux.org/packages/signoffs/ There are currently: * 0 new packages in last 24 hours * 0 known bad packages * 0 packages not accepting signoffs * 0 fully signed off packages * 18 packages missing signoffs * 0 packages older than 14 days (Note: the word 'package' as used here refers to packages as grouped by pkgbase, architecture, and repository; e.g., one PKGBUILD produces one package per architecture, even if it is a split package.) == Incomplete signoffs for [community] (16 total) == * systemd-arch-units-20120704-2 (any) 0/2 signoffs * cdfs-2.6.27-26 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * ndiswrapper-1.57-18 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * open-vm-tools-modules-2012.05.21-6 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * r8168-8.031.00-9 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * rt3562sta-2.4.1.1-12 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * slmodem-2.9.11-67 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * vhba-module-20120422-7 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * virtualbox-modules-4.1.18-6 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * cdfs-2.6.27-26 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * ndiswrapper-1.57-18 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * open-vm-tools-modules-2012.05.21-6 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * r8168-8.031.00-9 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * rt3562sta-2.4.1.1-12 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * vhba-module-20120422-7 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * virtualbox-modules-4.1.18-6 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs == Incomplete signoffs for [unknown] (2 total) == * tp_smapi-0.41-5 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * tp_smapi-0.41-5 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs == Top five in signoffs in last 24 hours == 1. andyrtr - 1 signoffs 2. dan - 1 signoffs

1 0

[aur-general] Deletion Request
by rafael ff1 12 Aug '12

12 Aug '12

lib32-libusb[1] is maintained by me and since libusb was replaced with lib32-libusbx, I believe lib32-libusb was replaced lib32-libusbx. [1] http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=56520 So, please delete lib32-libusb Thanks

2 2

[aur-general] Please remove my package
by Tomasz Niedzielski 12 Aug '12

12 Aug '12

Hi! I'm total new in AUR package creation and by a mistake I sent to AUR wrong (messy) version of the package. Please, remove it from AUR. Here's link to the package: http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=61775 Thank you very much in advance. Tomasz "Ludvick" Niedzielski

4 6