[aur-general] The Arch Way
chrdr at gmx.at
Sat Sep 11 03:00:36 EDT 2010
Am Freitag, 10. September 2010, 21:59:47 schrieb Ng Oon-Ee:
> On Fri, 2010-09-10 at 19:22 +0200, Ulf Winkelvos wrote:
> > On 10.09.2010 19:07, Christoph wrote:
> > > On Friday, 10 September 2010, 17:40:35 Ng Oon-Ee wrote:
> > >> It looks like in this case the content of the portable zip is
> > >> identicaly (just about) to the content of the deb, just that the debs
> > >> are arch-specific.
> > >
> > > That describes the situation very well. Moreover, the debs contain a
> > > .desktop and a .png file, whereas the zip file does not, and the zip
> > > version looks for the configuration file in some sub-sub-subfolder,
> > > not in /etc.
> > >
> > > Christoph
> > You should consider option 4, like Philipp suggested, until then i don't
> > see how option 2 should be any better than option 3.
> > Ulf
> You mean besides the fact that 'debs are evil-er than zips'?
> Something about that 'data' folder is really bad =)
For the time being I have uploaded a PKGBUILD based on option 3. According to
Philips suggestion I am going to ask upstream for a source tarball not needing
eclipse to build, but I am not very optimistic. I think that if they had
wanted to issue such a tarball, they would already have done so.
Nevertheless, I'll give it a try.
Thanks for all your replies and suggestions.
More information about the aur-general