- Aur-general - lists.archlinux.org

[aur-general] Frontpage
by Lex Black 26 Jul '14

26 Jul '14

Since the creation of an extra mailing list, shouldn't the frontpage be adjusted to reflect the change? Currently: "Discussion General discussion regarding the Arch User Repository (AUR) and Trusted User structure takes place on aur-general. This list can be used for package orphan requests, merge requests, and deletion requests. For discussion relating to the development of the AUR, use the aur-dev mailing list." Since the request system changed at whole (requests possible from the webinterface; aur-requests ML) the sentence about the requests should be removed or altered to reflect the current system? Best regards

2 1

[aur-general] Signoff report for [community-testing]
by Arch Website Notification 26 Jul '14

26 Jul '14

=== Signoff report for [community-testing] === https://www.archlinux.org/packages/signoffs/ There are currently: * 2 new packages in last 24 hours * 0 known bad packages * 0 packages not accepting signoffs * 0 fully signed off packages * 27 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.) == New packages in [community-testing] in last 24 hours (2 total) == * partimage-0.6.9-6 (i686) * partimage-0.6.9-6 (x86_64) == Incomplete signoffs for [community] (27 total) == * acpi_call-1.1.0-9 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * bbswitch-0.8-13 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * lz4-120-1 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * mpv-0.4.1-2 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * mythplugins-1:0.27.3-1 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * mythtv-1:0.27.3-1 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * partimage-0.6.9-6 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * r8168-8.038.00-8 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * radvd-2.1-1 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * rt3562sta-2.4.1.1_r1-7 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * tp_smapi-0.41-51 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * vhba-module-20140629-4 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * virtualbox-4.3.14-2 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * virtualbox-modules-4.3.14-2 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * acpi_call-1.1.0-9 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * bbswitch-0.8-13 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * lz4-120-1 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * mpv-0.4.1-2 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * mythplugins-1:0.27.3-1 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * mythtv-1:0.27.3-1 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * partimage-0.6.9-6 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * r8168-8.038.00-8 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * radvd-2.1-1 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * tp_smapi-0.41-51 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * vhba-module-20140629-4 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * virtualbox-4.3.14-2 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * virtualbox-modules-4.3.14-2 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs == Top five in signoffs in last 24 hours == 1. lcarlier - 2 signoffs

1 0

[aur-general] Lost Password
by yermandu 25 Jul '14

25 Jul '14

I lost my password in aur the passreset doesnt send email with link -- daniel yermandu [at] gmail dot com * ,--./,-. / # \ | | \ / `._,._,'*

2 3

Re: [aur-general] Compiz package naming
by Rob McCathie 25 Jul '14

25 Jul '14

Hi Charles :) > Message: 6 > Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 10:51:15 +0100 > From: Charles Bos <charlesbos1(a)gmail.com> > To: "Discussion about the Arch User Repository (AUR)" > <aur-general(a)archlinux.org> > Subject: Re: [aur-general] Compiz package naming > Message-ID: > <CAJr1w13nX3riq%3D%2BBoozWuviDA-1gRHcZa-D0RPHvZTdvXg%3DrsQ(a)mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > This change sounds sensible to me. I would be more than happy to turn > compiz-core-bzr back into compiz-bzr. > > Regarding compiz.org, that has been dead for a long time and I wouldn't > consider it an authority on Compiz information. For instance: on the front > page of wiki.compiz.org it states that 0.8.8 is the latest 0.8 release and > 0.9.8 is the latest 0.9 release when it is actually 0.8.9 and 0.9.11 > respectively. > > I wouldn't regard the 0.9.x series is not a fork. It's a development branch > which should theoretically be released as Compiz 0.10 or Compiz 1.0 in the > same way that GNOME 3.13 is a development branch that will be released as > 3.14 in the future. I think it's a struggle to even refer to it as a development branch these days. It's been used in multiple releases of the (supposedly) enterprise-grade Ubuntu LTS releases. Doesn't sound like the sort of distribution release that "development branch" software would be used in. Personally, I view the 0.9 series as the current release branch. > Regarding the renaming of the 0.8 packages. Perhaps they could be called > compiz0.8 instead of compiz-legacy. This sometimes happens in the official > repos. For instance: there's wxgtk (which is at version 3) and wxgtk2.8. > Just a thought. Sure, compiz-legacy, compiz0.8, either works. -- Regards, Rob McCathie

1 0

Re: [aur-general] Compiz package naming
by Rob McCathie 25 Jul '14

25 Jul '14

>> Hello AUR general & Compiz package maintainers. >> >> There was some discussion about Compiz packages a little while ago, i >> don't think that much came of it. I'd like to re-open the discussion. >> >> My opinions/suggestions: >> >> Calling the 0.8 series "compiz" and the 0.9 series "compiz-devel" is >> no longer correct, it hasn't been for quite some time. >> >> All information on this page: >> http://www.compiz.org/ >> is completely wrong and out of date, like 5 years out of date, and >> should not be used as a reference for anything. >> Tracking of the state of Compiz should be done from here: >> https://launchpad.net/compiz >> >> Development of the 0.8 series is as close to being dead as it could >> be. Unless you count 2 tiny commits 5 months ago, nothing has been >> done in 16 months, and even that 16 month old commit was a minor >> change just to get it working with KDE 4.10, with the commit prior to >> that being an additional 5 months back. >> http://cgit.compiz.org/compiz/core/log/?h=compiz-0.8 >> >> My suggestion is pretty simple, "compiz" becomes the 0.9 series, the >> 0.8 series becomes "compiz-legacy". >> Any 0.9 series packages that have "core" in their name should have it >> removed, since the concept of Compiz being split up has been dropped >> since the 0.9 series. The 0.9 series doesn't have a "core" component, >> it's just "compiz". >> >> Some examples: >> >> martadinata666's "compiz-core" package would become "compiz-legacy-core" >> >> dev_rs0's "compiz-core-devel" package would become simply "compiz" >> >> Chazza's "compiz-core-bzr" package would become "compiz-bzr" >> >> flexiondotorg's "compiz-core-mate" package would become >> "compiz-legacy-core-mate" >> >> My "compiz-gtk-standalone" package would become "compiz-legacy-gtk-standalone" >> >> All the "compiz-fusion-plugins-*" packages would become >> "compiz-legacy-fusion-plugins-*" >> >> ...and so on. >> >> What are everyone's thoughts? >> >> -- >> Regards, >> Rob McCathie > >If that's true, why haven't the developers updated the site to reflect >that? I think it's fairly obvious that no one is actually maintaining that site. >The lead developer seems to consider the project dead, and the >site reflects that view. Canonical is doing temporary maintenance of >their fork until they move to Mir. I wouldn't call the 0.9 series "Canonical's fork". Canonical hired lead Compiz developer, Sam Spilsbury, to continue work on Compiz. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compiz#Compiz_0.9_series I don't see how the current launchpad hosted Compiz could be considered anything other than the true successor. Also, to ensure another common misconception doesn't crop up - The Compiz 0.9 gets further patched beyond what is on launchpad.net/compiz by Canonical for Unity. The code you get if you source directly from launchpad.net/compiz is not Unity or Ubuntu specific. I can say this with much confidence, since i've been using it for months now combined with Xfce (as a xfwm4 replacement) on Arch and Manjaro systems. -- Regards, Rob McCathie

2 2

[aur-general] Signoff report for [community-testing]
by Arch Website Notification 25 Jul '14

25 Jul '14

=== Signoff report for [community-testing] === https://www.archlinux.org/packages/signoffs/ There are currently: * 6 new packages in last 24 hours * 0 known bad packages * 0 packages not accepting signoffs * 0 fully signed off packages * 25 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.) == New packages in [community-testing] in last 24 hours (6 total) == * lz4-120-1 (i686) * mythplugins-1:0.27.3-1 (i686) * mythtv-1:0.27.3-1 (i686) * lz4-120-1 (x86_64) * mythplugins-1:0.27.3-1 (x86_64) * mythtv-1:0.27.3-1 (x86_64) == Incomplete signoffs for [community] (25 total) == * acpi_call-1.1.0-9 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * bbswitch-0.8-13 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * lz4-120-1 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * mpv-0.4.1-2 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * mythplugins-1:0.27.3-1 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * mythtv-1:0.27.3-1 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * r8168-8.038.00-8 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * radvd-2.1-1 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * rt3562sta-2.4.1.1_r1-7 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * tp_smapi-0.41-51 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * vhba-module-20140629-4 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * virtualbox-4.3.14-2 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * virtualbox-modules-4.3.14-2 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * acpi_call-1.1.0-9 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * bbswitch-0.8-13 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * lz4-120-1 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * mpv-0.4.1-2 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * mythplugins-1:0.27.3-1 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * mythtv-1:0.27.3-1 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * r8168-8.038.00-8 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * radvd-2.1-1 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * tp_smapi-0.41-51 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * vhba-module-20140629-4 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * virtualbox-4.3.14-2 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * virtualbox-modules-4.3.14-2 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs == Top five in signoffs in last 24 hours == 1. bisson - 4 signoffs 2. dreisner - 2 signoffs 3. anatolik - 1 signoffs

1 0

[aur-general] deletion request
by Jose Riha 24 Jul '14

24 Jul '14

hello, please remove flac2mp3 from aur as it has been replaced by flac2mp3-git. thank you, jose

2 1

[aur-general] Signoff report for [community-testing]
by Arch Website Notification 24 Jul '14

24 Jul '14

=== Signoff report for [community-testing] === https://www.archlinux.org/packages/signoffs/ There are currently: * 3 new packages in last 24 hours * 0 known bad packages * 0 packages not accepting signoffs * 0 fully signed off packages * 20 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.) == New packages in [community-testing] in last 24 hours (3 total) == * mpv-0.4.1-2 (i686) * docker-1:1.1.1-2 (x86_64) * mpv-0.4.1-2 (x86_64) == Incomplete signoffs for [community] (20 total) == * acpi_call-1.1.0-9 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * bbswitch-0.8-13 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * mpv-0.4.1-2 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * r8168-8.038.00-8 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * radvd-2.1-1 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * rt3562sta-2.4.1.1_r1-7 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * tp_smapi-0.41-51 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * vhba-module-20140629-4 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * virtualbox-4.3.14-2 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * virtualbox-modules-4.3.14-2 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * acpi_call-1.1.0-9 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * bbswitch-0.8-13 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * docker-1:1.1.1-2 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * mpv-0.4.1-2 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * r8168-8.038.00-8 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * radvd-2.1-1 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * tp_smapi-0.41-51 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * vhba-module-20140629-4 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * virtualbox-4.3.14-2 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * virtualbox-modules-4.3.14-2 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs == Top five in signoffs in last 24 hours == 1. thestinger - 5 signoffs 2. bpiotrowski - 4 signoffs 3. fyan - 2 signoffs

1 0

[aur-general] move sc and python2-mrjob to [community]
by Ido Rosen 23 Jul '14

23 Jul '14

Would it be possible to request that "sc" be promoted to [community] by one of you fine TUs? It doesn't change very often at all and it's a pretty handy tool. Additionally, while we're at it, an unrelated but very cool package, "python2-mrjob"? :-) I am not a TU, otherwise I would do it myself. Thanks, Ido On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 5:09 PM, Alexander Rødseth <rodseth(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > No packages depends on iat (a utility for converting CD images). > Upstream is gone and I could not find any forks of the project on the > web. > Removed. > > -- > Best regards, > Alexander Rødseth / xyproto >

4 7

[aur-general] Signoff report for [community-testing]
by Arch Website Notification 23 Jul '14

23 Jul '14

=== Signoff report for [community-testing] === https://www.archlinux.org/packages/signoffs/ There are currently: * 4 new packages in last 24 hours * 0 known bad packages * 0 packages not accepting signoffs * 0 fully signed off packages * 19 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.) == New packages in [community-testing] in last 24 hours (4 total) == * idle3-tools-0.9.1-4 (i686) * radvd-2.1-1 (i686) * idle3-tools-0.9.1-4 (x86_64) * radvd-2.1-1 (x86_64) == Incomplete signoffs for [community] (19 total) == * acpi_call-1.1.0-9 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * bbswitch-0.8-13 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * idle3-tools-0.9.1-4 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * r8168-8.038.00-8 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * radvd-2.1-1 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * rt3562sta-2.4.1.1_r1-7 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * tp_smapi-0.41-51 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * vhba-module-20140629-4 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * virtualbox-4.3.14-2 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * virtualbox-modules-4.3.14-2 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * acpi_call-1.1.0-9 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * bbswitch-0.8-13 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * idle3-tools-0.9.1-4 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * r8168-8.038.00-8 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * radvd-2.1-1 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * tp_smapi-0.41-51 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * vhba-module-20140629-4 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * virtualbox-4.3.14-2 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * virtualbox-modules-4.3.14-2 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs == Top five in signoffs in last 24 hours ==

1 0