markus at unterwaditzer.net
Mon Apr 9 10:23:23 EDT 2012
You should write that into the comments section of the package.
oliver <oliver at first.in-berlin.de> wrote:
On Mon, Apr 09, 2012 at 03:53:27PM +0200, oliver wrote:
> 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".
When I just change "libgexiv2-git" to "libgexiv2"
in the dependency list, then again package build fails,
because there is no vala >= 0.15.2.
So, here are some more probllems...
More information about the aur-general