Excerpts from Ray Rashif's message of 2010-09-27 08:46:48 +0200:
> Hi all
> Forwarding to the AUR list because it seems my reply did not reach the
> user (Christoph Pegel aka "rio"); jack was marked out-of-date again.
> Please read below and don't do this for a third time.
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Ray Rashif <email@example.com>
> Date: 23 September 2010 03:53
> Subject: Re: Extra package [jack] marked out-of-date
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> JACK2 is not going to replace JACK1 anytime soon.
> There has been at least one discussion regarding this on the Linux
> Audio User and/or Developer mailing lists, where Paul Davis, one of
> the primary developers/contributors, discourage distributions to make
> this transition (eyes were on those that actually did it). I do not
> recall the topic URI to cite, but anyone curious can get in touch with
> upstream to verify.
> Both branches have functioning APIs - the JACK1 API is tried and
> tested. JACK2 is an improvement and an alternative for SMP machines,
> but not a replacement.
> However, thanks for the nudge. I have been wanting to add a "jack2" to
> the repos but never got to it. Expect it in [community].
> On 23 September 2010 02:04, Arch Website Notification
> <email@example.com> wrote:
> > * Note: this is an automated message
> > firstname.lastname@example.org wants to notify you that the following package may be out of date:
> > * *Package Name: jack
> > * *Architecture: x86_64
> > * *Repository: * Extra
> > * *(http://www.archlinux.org/packages/extra/x86_64/jack/)
> > The user provided the following additional text:
> > Jack switched to JACK2 series which is currently stable in version 1.9.5 according to http://jackaudio.org/node/29 or even in version 1.9.6 according to http://www.grame.fr/~letz/jackdmp.html
> > There already is a PKGBUILD for JACK 1.9.6 in the AUR at http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=22488
Good that you clarify it for those not so involved. It's a bit
unfortunate that jackdmp was renamed to jack2, exactly because it
suggests that it's the successor to jack1, which it isn't. They are
the two 'biggest' (meaning 'mainstream') implementations of jack that
are developed in parallel. Jack1 is the first one, but no other
implementation is going to replace it anytime soon, even though debian
and derived distros switched to jack2 recently. Each implementation has
a couple of benefits and drawbacks, there's currently no 'best'
implementation. Jack1 has the benefit that it's well tested, the other
implementations don't have any features that make them clearly a
01-30-2011, 07:49 PM
I'm unable to respond to you because you "missed" to add your real email.
This is a good opportunity to announce that i won't follow releases and
i'll stick with svn snapshots.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Extra package [mplayer] marked out-of-date
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2011 20:41:41 -0000
From: Arch Website Notification <email@example.com>
* Note: this is an automated message
firstname.lastname@example.org wants to notify you that the following package may be out-of-date:
Package Name: mplayer
The user provided the following additional text:
Why not stick to releases?
In this case 1.0 release candidate 4
05-14-2012, 04:27 PM
On 14.05.2012 15:22, Arch Website Notification wrote:
> **** wants to notify you that the following packages may be out-of-date:
> * skype 18.104.22.168-3 [community] (i686): https://www.archlinux.org/packages/community/i686/skype/
> * skype 22.214.171.124-3 [multilib] (x86_64): https://www.archlinux.org/packages/multilib/x86_64/skype/
> The user provided the following additional text:
> New Version available http://blogs.skype.com/garage/2012/05/skype_22_for_linux_hotfix.html
> Maybe 126.96.36.199-3 is not affected, but even then, its not the latest version. Please update :-)!
We are packaging the dynamically linked skype binary and if you read
that blog post skype even states that you don't need to update that
because .35 is the latest dynamically linked skype package.
The problem that has been fix in the static build is in libpng which we
package separately and that has already been updated, therefore our
skype package is fine.
Since this is the second time, I ask everyone not to flag skype out of
date again unless they really release a new dynamically linked package.
PS: The submitter of this OOD message has been BCC'ed.
No stable releases in more than a year and a half. Should be replaced by libusbx : http://sourceforge.net/apps/mediawiki/libusbx
05-23-2012, 01:10 PM
Am 23.05.2012 15:07, schrieb Tobias Powalowski:
> -------- Original-Nachricht --------
> Betreff: Core package [libusb] marked out-of-date
> Datum: Wed, 23 May 2012 12:12:24 -0000
> Von: Arch Website Notification <email@example.com>
> An: firstname.lastname@example.org
> email@example.com wants to notify you that the following packages may be out-of-date:
> * libusb 1.0.9-1 [core] (i686): https://www.archlinux.org/packages/core/i686/libusb/
> * libusb 1.0.9-1 [core] (x86_64): https://www.archlinux.org/packages/core/x86_64/libusb/
> The user provided the following additional text:
> No stable releases in more than a year and a half. Should be replaced by libusbx : http://sourceforge.net/apps/mediawiki/libusbx
This flag is stupid and wrong, 1.0.9 is from april of this year.
If you want libusbx add a feature request on bugtracker and don't flag