[aur-general] Copy.com dueling packages

[Limao Luo]

On 04/02/2013 02:35 PM, Jelle van der Waa wrote:
> On 02/04/13 17:59, Jonathan Arnold wrote:
>> There are 2 packages for the Copy.com client software package:
>>
>> copy - https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/copy/
>> copy-agent - https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/copy-agent/
>>
>> I think both have PKGBUILD problems, from dependencies (the Copy.com
>> software uses Qt4, not Gtk, for instance) to poorly formed PKGBUILDs
>> (one has just a package() method and one has just a build() method).
Only a build() method is deprecated, but only a package() is perfectly fine.
>> I'm not really sure how this should be resolved, mostly because I
>> wouldn't pick one over the other right now.
I agree.
>>
>> Any one with more PKGBUILD confidence want to step in?
>>
>> Also, if you're interested, sign up with this link and we both get an
>> extra 5gb(!) of cloud storage on copy.com:
>>
>> https://copy.com?r=NXWnIn
>>
> Imo the 'copy' package is perfectly fine. The other package installs in
> /opt which isn't needed.
>
Actually both packages have good and bad qualities that the other 
doesn't; although 'copy-agent' is much better for reasons stated above, 
it doesn't have the systemd service file or the license terms file that 
'copy' does.


Anyway, I'll submit a PKGBUILD here that incorporates the good of both ASAP.