oliver at first.in-berlin.de
Mon Apr 9 09:53:27 EDT 2012
On Sun, Apr 08, 2012 at 09:36:10PM +0200, Jelle van der Waa wrote:
> On 08/04/12 18:15, Karol Błażewicz wrote:
> > On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 18:13:24 +0200, oliver <oliver at first.in-berlin.de>
> > wrote:
> >> Also it confuses me that shotwell is on http://www.archlinux.org
> >> as well as http://aur.archlinux.org
> > You can put any package in the AUR as long as it doesn't use the exact
> > same name as some package from the official repos.
> > shotwell v. shotwell-git is fine.
> > There are tons of such packages. There's usually just one version of a
> > package in the official repos but the AUR can have multiple ones: -git,
> > -light, -no-foo etc.
> Sergej is inactive atm, i will look into updating it
Yes, would be fine to have a newer shotwell.
When I tried to build shotwell from the AUR package
it tried to load "libgexiv2-git".
But that package does not exist.
There only is the package "libgexiv2-git 20110430-1".
So either libgexiv2-git 20110430-1 must be used in the
shotwell package, or maybe the "libgexiv2-git 20110430-1"
will not work togehter with that shotwell version.
Or maybe only "libgexiv2" should be given as dependency, which
is avaialable via pacman. But I don't know if that version
of "libgexiv2" might give problems.
Any ideas on this?
Or would you like to update the shotwell stuff soon?
This would be fine.
More information about the aur-general