Am 04/17/10 23:17, schrieb Ronny:
In general I agree. But the name/date of the package suggest an old
trunk (3449/last update 2007) and actually there is revision 7540.


Greetings
Ronny

Am 17.04.2010 22:26, schrieb Thorsten Töpper:

On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 22:06:00 +0200
Ronny<sir.steiner@gmx.de> wrote:

Please delete wormux-svn 3449-1

http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=11700

because it is outdated, no activities and there is wormux in
community.

Thank you.
Ronny


It's an orphaned subversion package and wormux is still developed using
svn[1] so I see no reason to delete it. If there are problems with the
build anyone can take it and fix that, neither the version of this
type of package nor the stable version in the repository do not
matter, as the PKGBUILD will get the latest commits and the code is
another than the one of the version in the repository.

[1] http://www.wormux.org/phpboost/wiki/subversion


This does not matter, since it will be rebuild every time directly via
svn. The pkgbuild does not need to be updated every time.
Anyway, posts on this mailing list should be on the bottom for better
readability.


Adam Hani Schakaki

Sorry you may see a email similar to this one, but I kept getting a
thing saying a Mod must approve message and I figured out what went wrong.


The following pkg I request to be deleted
http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=11796

It is similar to:
http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=22177 <-- I adopted and updated it.

On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 11:21 AM, Nathan O. <ndowens04@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sorry you may see a email similar to this one, but I kept getting a thing
> saying a Mod must approve message and I figured out what went wrong.
>
> The following pkg I request to be deleted
> http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=11796
>
> It is similar to:
> http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=22177 <-- I adopted and updated it.

Done.

On 05/29/2010 03:56 AM, Evangelos Foutras wrote:

On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 11:21 AM, Nathan O.<ndowens04@gmail.com> wrote:


Sorry you may see a email similar to this one, but I kept getting a thing
saying a Mod must approve message and I figured out what went wrong.

The following pkg I request to be deleted
http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=11796

It is similar to:
http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=22177<-- I adopted and updated it.


Done.


Thanks :-)

As much as I'd like to adopt it and upgrade it, I believe the following
package is the same as the gpgme in the repos already:

http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=866

> As much as I'd like to adopt it and upgrade it, I believe the following
> package is the same as the gpgme in the repos already:
> http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=866

This is not a duplicate.
It is the 0.3.x series of gpgme.

-- Chris

On 06/01/2010 09:11 PM, Chris Brannon wrote:

As much as I'd like to adopt it and upgrade it, I believe the following
package is the same as the gpgme in the repos already:
http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=866


This is not a duplicate.
It is the 0.3.x series of gpgme.

-- Chris


Hmm Figured it was the same one, thanks and sorry.

Can somebody delete http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=8306 The
homepage has changed and so has the pkgname, I am about to update it as
an updated PKGBUILD which would create another package. Currently I am
writing in the acpica developer listing to make sure that we'd be
allowed to package it.

On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 16:27, Nathan O. <ndowens04@gmail.com> wrote:
> Can somebody delete http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=8306 The
> homepage has changed and so has the pkgname, I am about to update it as an
> updated PKGBUILD which would create another package. Currently I am writing
> in the acpica developer listing to make sure that we'd be allowed to package
> it.

Done.

On 06/02/2010 03:56 PM, Ranguvar wrote:

On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 16:27, Nathan O.<ndowens04@gmail.com> wrote:


Can somebody delete http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=8306 The
homepage has changed and so has the pkgname, I am about to update it as an
updated PKGBUILD which would create another package. Currently I am writing
in the acpica developer listing to make sure that we'd be allowed to package
it.


Done.

Thanks. The above only included one tool, when the new one I am updating
includes three tools, and according to the acpica mailing list, they are
going to include another tool soon.