Hi,

Was wondering if this package could be disowned?

I'm working on an updated PKGBUILD and would like to take over maintenance. Also an user/fan of this application, and it's worth having an up to date SVN package out there for all to use.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Thanks!

Greg

On 04/04/2010 08:31 μμ, Gregory Gincley wrote:

Hi,

Was wondering if this package could be disowned?

I'm working on an updated PKGBUILD and would like to take over maintenance. Also an user/fan of this application, and it's worth having an up to date SVN package out there for all to use.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Thanks!

Greg


Does the PKGBUILD actually need changing? I'm asking because makepkg
will notice this is a development (in this case, subversion) package and
build the latest revision automatically.

On So, 2010-04-04 at 20:37 +0300, Evangelos Foutras wrote:
> Does the PKGBUILD actually need changing? I'm asking because makepkg
> will notice this is a development (in this case, subversion) package
> and
> build the latest revision automatically.

But the version in the PKGBUILD needs to be changed manually, doesn't
it? Otherwise users of this application don't get informed when there is
a new version ...
--
Best regards,
Karol Babioch <karol@babioch.de>

On 04/04/10 20:29, Karol Babioch wrote:

But the version in the PKGBUILD needs to be changed manually, doesn't
it? Otherwise users of this application don't get informed when there is
a new version ...
If all that needs changing is the version number, then you can leave it
as-is forever. When the user installs, the version number is
automatically bumped to the latest. It's nice to update the PKGBUILD so
users can know when a new update to the code was made, but it's not at
all necessary.

Am 04.04.2010 21:37, schrieb Nathan Wayde:

On 04/04/10 20:29, Karol Babioch wrote:

But the version in the PKGBUILD needs to be changed manually, doesn't
it? Otherwise users of this application don't get informed when there is
a new version ...

If all that needs changing is the version number, then you can leave it
as-is forever. When the user installs, the version number is
automatically bumped to the latest. It's nice to update the PKGBUILD so
users can know when a new update to the code was made, but it's not at
all necessary.


The PKGBUILD seems to be usable, at lest the build process ends up successfully.

On 5 April 2010 03:56, Stefan Husmann <stefan-husmann@t-online.de> wrote:
> Am 04.04.2010 21:37, schrieb Nathan Wayde:
>>
>> On 04/04/10 20:29, Karol Babioch wrote:
>>>
>>> But the version in the PKGBUILD needs to be changed manually, doesn't
>>> it? Otherwise users of this application don't get informed when there is
>>> a new version ...
>>
>> If all that needs changing is the version number, then you can leave it
>> as-is forever. When the user installs, the version number is
>> automatically bumped to the latest. It's nice to update the PKGBUILD so
>> users can know when a new update to the code was made, but it's not at
>> all necessary.
>>
> The PKGBUILD seems to be usable, at lest the build process ends up
> successfully.

It's a PKGBUILD for the development version of a software, and there
is no such thing as "automatic" because changes happen anytime and
everytime, and as such it is best to keep a local copy of the
buildscripts and makepkg as and when the need is felt. If the
complaint is from an unsupported pacman wrapper's viewpoint, then you
can for eg. cron a yaourt -S every night.

That is, of course, provided the buildscripts continue to work.


--
GPG/PGP ID: B42DDCAD