- Aur-general - lists.archlinux.org

[aur-general] Removal of ethereal from AUR
by Erwin Van de Velde 02 Apr '08

02 Apr '08

ethereal has been replaced by extra/wireshark since June 2006. Could someone please remove this PKGBUILD? Thanks in advance Erwin

1 0

[aur-general] orphaning packages
by Lukáš Jirkovský 30 Mar '08

30 Mar '08

Hello, can you please orphan packages of user russianpirate? It seems that he isn't maintaining any of his packages anymore. I've tried to contact him, but his email doesn't exist. Regards Lukas '6xx' Jirkovsky

2 2

[aur-general] Remove stone-soup from unsupported
by Nathan Jones 29 Mar '08

29 Mar '08

I would like to adopt stone-soup, but it is currently in community. Could someone demote it to unsupported?

2 1

[aur-general] help needed with x86_64
by Firmicus 28 Mar '08

28 Mar '08

I am willing to kill this http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/9765 I have built texlive-bin on i686 a long time ago, and some other TU took care of providing it for Arch64. But recently, to my great surprise, the above bug report was issued. (Quite amazing!) A few days ago I decided to liberate a partition and install Arch64 on it. I must say, it went without a glitch, and from now on I will be able to help keeping x86_64 in sync with i686 (I used Aaron's machine for a while, but for some packages it is not convenient, or even impossible to rely on a chroot). So last night I issued a makepkg for texlive-bin on my arch64 system and went to bed. But this morning I saw that the build had failed. I have a strong intuition that this is related to gcc 4.3, because I have had a similar issue with another package which compiled fine with gcc 4.2.3 on i686 but failed with gcc 4.3. Since I really have no time to investigate the problem and eventually make a patch for gcc 4.3, I would prefer to downgrade to gcc 4.2.3 and try to see if it works. Also, since TeXLive 2008 will be available in about two months, I don't want to spend too much time on the 2007 version. Does anybody have a copy of gcc-4.2.3-*-x86_64.pkg.tar.gz lying in its cache? I guess I'd need the corresponding gcc-libs too. That'd be a great help (well, I hope!) Thanks, Firmicus

3 3

[aur-general] Keeping community64 up to date
by Allan McRae 28 Mar '08

28 Mar '08

Hi, I have come to realize that the current way of keeping community64 in sync could use some improving. I realized this when looking at the pkg_diff web page [1] thinking I would build some packages. After being distracted by the internet for a few minutes... I reloaded the page and noticed that some of the packages had been uploaded. Now had I actually built those packages, it would have been a waste of time. Also, I'm never sure how much time to wait and see whether the TU who uploaded the i686 package is going to upload the x86_64 package. How can this be improved? The best I can come up with is making a wiki page with a list of x86_64 build requests. TU's who upload a i686 package and are not going to build the x86_64 package themselves would need to add the package to the page. Think of it as punishment for not building it yourself. :) When someone else goes to build the package they either remove it from the list or tag that it is being built. That probably isn't the best idea, but I feel that the current system is a bit flawed. Any other suggestions/comments? Allan [1] http://dev.archlinux.org/~andyrtr/pkg_diff.html

13 18

[aur-general] List of packages with no license information in core, extra and community
by Ronald van Haren 26 Mar '08

26 Mar '08

Hi all, I just came across some package in extra and noticed it had no license information at all in the PKGBUILD (though the package is not even gpl). So I got the idea of checking if more packages had this problem and came up with a list of the core, extra and community repositories (it should be easy to run the script for unstable and testing too if required). Please all take a look at the list and fix the packages. It really are too much packages without license information! Respective bug reports can be found for core & extra: http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/9971 community: http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/9970 I also attached the lists to this mail. Regards, Ronald

2 3

[aur-general] AUR need a clean up?
by JaDa 26 Mar '08

26 Mar '08

perl-archive-extract: (local=0.24-1 aur=0.18-3) perl-ipc-cmd: (local=0.40-1 aur=0.36-3) perl-locale-maketext-simple: (local=0.18-2 aur=0.16-3) perl-module-load: (local=0.12-1 aur=0.10-2) perl-module-load-conditional: (local=0.22-1 aur=0.16-3) -- Make it idiot proof and someone will make a better idiot.

3 2

Re: [aur-general] Problems uploading i686 packages to community?
by Simo Leone 25 Mar '08

25 Mar '08

On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 10:48:02PM +1000, Allan McRae wrote: >> > Well given it is not just me and I have not touched .tupkg since I became a > TU, so I'm pretty sure it is not that. > My guess is the script that deals with the AUR/communty integration either > got broken by the update or has not been restarted. > There were no changes to that code. More likely your problems are coming from the update daemon still refusing to put through the update because of errors. -S Pkgbuild '/home/aur/cvs/lib/perl-xml-libxml-common/PKGBUILD' is a duplicate! Aborting due to errors

4 5

[aur-general] perl 5.10 is there
by Firmicus 25 Mar '08

25 Mar '08

*Perl 5.10 is now in core.* I have started my perl commit/upload orgy... Sergej, please upload perl-libxml, perl-libxml-common, perl-net-dbus and perl-xml-rss as priority, because until it is done, all pkgs that depend on them (I have some) will be non-functional! Since I have built them for both architectures anyway, I could take care of them, if you want. Best, F

4 6

[aur-general] Missing Packages
by aur-notify＠archlinux.org 23 Mar '08

23 Mar '08

Missing i686 Packages: No new package supplied for libnjb 2.2.4-1! No new package supplied for libaal 1.0.5-2! No new package supplied for spidermonkey 1.5-2! No new package supplied for python-elementtree 1.2.6-2! -- This is an automated message. If you wish to stop receiving it twice a day, fix the package(s).

2 1