Christoph Bayer | 26 Nov 16:03 2014
Picon

android-samples-5.0 can be removed

Hello,

I just accidentally uploaded a miss named package, I have re-uploaded a
version with correct naming, but the old is still here to be removed:
It is called "android-samples-5.0".

Thank you very much in advance!

Best regards,
Christoph Bayer

Arch Website Notification | 26 Nov 10:07 2014

Signoff report for [community-testing]

=== Signoff report for [community-testing] ===
https://www.archlinux.org/packages/signoffs/

There are currently:
* 8 new packages in last 24 hours
* 0 known bad packages
* 0 packages not accepting signoffs
* 0 fully signed off packages
* 31 packages missing signoffs
* 3 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 (8 total) ==

* gdal-1.11.1-3 (i686)
* python-h5py-2.3.1-3 (i686)
* python-pytables-3.1.1-4 (i686)
* vtk-6.1.0-1 (i686)
* gdal-1.11.1-3 (x86_64)
* python-h5py-2.3.1-3 (x86_64)
* python-pytables-3.1.1-4 (x86_64)
* vtk-6.1.0-1 (x86_64)

== Incomplete signoffs for [community] (29 total) ==

* freevo-1.9.0-14 (any)
    0/2 signoffs
(Continue reading)

Daniel Albers | 25 Nov 23:13 2014

Re: AUR Comment for customizepkg-ald

[ Copying aur-general for other opnions and get clarification on AUR
rules out there ]

Hey Jonathan,

Thanks for maintaining AUR and keeping the Arch ecosystem healthy. Some
honest questions/comments regarding the deletion of the AUR package
customizepkg-ald:

The package was a patched version of customizepkg.
There are thousands of AUR packages that are variants of other packages
and I can't see any problem with that. In my understanding that's part
of what AUR is for. Is it not?

It's been customary for AUR deletions, orphanings etc. to have a two
weeks grace period. Should that not also apply to TUs?

The .tar.gz that you mentioned that violated the "no binaries on AUR"
rule contained nothing but ASCII files (as does customizepk┬╣). If I
unzip the tarball and re-upload it, does that not violate the rule? What
if I also untar it and upload each text file individually?

Cheers, Daniel

┬╣ https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/customizepkg/

On Di, 2014-11-25 at 18:52 +0000, notify@... wrote:
> from https://aur.archlinux.org//pkgbase/customizepkg-ald/
> jsteel wrote:
> 
(Continue reading)

Arch Website Notification | 25 Nov 10:07 2014

Signoff report for [community-testing]

=== 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
* 23 packages missing signoffs
* 3 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) ==

* android-tools-5.0.0_r7-1 (i686)
* android-tools-5.0.0_r7-1 (x86_64)

== Incomplete signoffs for [community] (21 total) ==

* freevo-1.9.0-14 (any)
    0/2 signoffs
* acpi_call-1.1.0-15 (i686)
    0/1 signoffs
* android-tools-5.0.0_r7-1 (i686)
    0/1 signoffs
* bbswitch-0.8-19 (i686)
    0/1 signoffs
(Continue reading)

Ido Rosen | 24 Nov 23:27 2014

mkinitcpio/mdadm/mdadm_udev fail to start raid10

The the default configuration under ArchLinux and DEVICE partitions in
mdadm.conf, mdadm and the mdadm mkinitcpio hook fail to load the
raid10 kernel module automatically, and as a result raid10 arrays fail
to load on boot in Arch.

My temporary workaround is to include the raid10 kernel module in the
mkinitcpio.conf MODULES= list, it could also be included in
/etc/modules-load.d/*.conf, but this should not be necessary, and is
currently not necessary for raid1 arrays.  I do not think this is an
upstream problem since my LFS and Gentoo boxes do load the correct
(raid10) kernel module without any specific configuration to do so.

Has anyone else replicated this behavior?

Suggestions:

- Preferred: Make the initcpio hook/mdadm udev rules/whatever loads
raid1.ko normally also detect raid10 (and raid5, raid6, ...) arrays
properly.

- Alternatively: Add a section to the SW RAID wiki page describing how
to make the module load persist on boot
(https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Software_RAID_and_LVM#Load_kernel_modules)

Ido

Arch Website Notification | 24 Nov 10:07 2014

Signoff report for [community-testing]

=== 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
* 21 packages missing signoffs
* 3 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) ==

* performous-1.0-1 (i686)
* performous-1.0-1 (x86_64)

== Incomplete signoffs for [community] (19 total) ==

* freevo-1.9.0-14 (any)
    0/2 signoffs
* acpi_call-1.1.0-15 (i686)
    0/1 signoffs
* bbswitch-0.8-19 (i686)
    0/1 signoffs
* envoy-11.1-1 (i686)
    0/1 signoffs
(Continue reading)

Arch Website Notification | 23 Nov 10:07 2014

Signoff report for [community-testing]

=== Signoff report for [community-testing] ===
https://www.archlinux.org/packages/signoffs/

There are currently:
* 14 new packages in last 24 hours
* 0 known bad packages
* 0 packages not accepting signoffs
* 0 fully signed off packages
* 25 packages missing signoffs
* 3 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 (14 total) ==

* acpi_call-1.1.0-15 (i686)
* bbswitch-0.8-19 (i686)
* r8168-8.039.00-4 (i686)
* rt3562sta-2.4.1.1_r1-13 (i686)
* tp_smapi-0.41-56 (i686)
* vhba-module-20140629-10 (i686)
* virtualbox-modules-4.3.20-2 (i686)
* acpi_call-1.1.0-15 (x86_64)
* bbswitch-0.8-19 (x86_64)
* r8168-8.039.00-4 (x86_64)
* rt3562sta-2.4.1.1_r1-13 (x86_64)
* tp_smapi-0.41-56 (x86_64)
* vhba-module-20140629-10 (x86_64)
(Continue reading)

Rob McCathie | 23 Nov 04:10 2014
Picon

Our troll is going another round

Hello AUR general,

Some of you may remember this:
https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2014-July/029069.html

Our troll recently tried to sneak back on to our forums and of course 
got banned, and now they're throwing another little tantrum.

All my packages are flagged out of date once again, when none of them 
are, and the package delete request for my aqualung package is not 
legitimate.

This is the troll's account:
https://aur.archlinux.org/account/bomberman

Again the troll is attempting to cause problems with other services 
outside of Manjaro's, again AUR is one of them. Apologies.

--
Regards,

Rob McCathie

Lukas Fleischer | 23 Nov 00:07 2014
Picon

AUR 3.5.0 released

Hello,

I am pleased to announce that AUR 3.5.0 has been released. The official
AUR setup [1] has already been updated.

This release adds support for architecture-specific sources (resp.
provides, conflicts, replaces) and for .SRCINFO, both of which will be
included in the next pacman release. Apart from that, the package list
and package base list are now official and available at [2, 3]. There
have also been a couple of internal changes and bug fixes.

For a comprehensive list of changes, please consult the Git log [4]. As
usual, bugs should be reported to the AUR bug tracker [5].

[1] https://aur.archlinux.org/
[2] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.gz
[3] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase.gz
[4] https://projects.archlinux.org/aur.git/log/?id=v3.5.0
[5] https://bugs.archlinux.org/index.php?project=2

Arch Website Notification | 22 Nov 10:07 2014

Signoff report for [community-testing]

=== 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
* 15 packages missing signoffs
* 3 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) ==

* cantata-1.5.0-2 (i686)
* goobox-3.2.1-2 (i686)
* nemo-extensions-2.4.0-2 (i686)
* cantata-1.5.0-2 (x86_64)
* goobox-3.2.1-2 (x86_64)
* nemo-extensions-2.4.0-2 (x86_64)

== Incomplete signoffs for [community] (13 total) ==

* freevo-1.9.0-14 (any)
    0/2 signoffs
* cantata-1.5.0-2 (i686)
    0/1 signoffs
(Continue reading)

Alfredo Palhares | 21 Nov 13:32 2014
Picon

Please delete texlive-gantt

Hello,

Please delete texlive-gantt[1]

The package is now in textlive-latexextra

[1] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/texlive-gantt/


Gmane