FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > ArchLinux > ArchLinux User Repository

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 06-25-2010, 06:43 AM
Anton Shestakov
 
Default Duplicates in AUR (flashrom-svn)

I want to bring attention to the following packages:

flashrom-dev - http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=30391
flashrom-svn - http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=23390
flashrom-svn-new - http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=36865

They all build flashrom from the same svn repo. The second package was the first one uploaded to AUR, but it have been last updated 25 Aug 2009 and doesn't contain libftdi dependence. I think we should remove flashrom-dev and flashrom-svn-new and keep flashrom-svn (it has more votes after all).

I did not contact the maintainer of the second package, but judging by the last date he updated his packages (25 Aug 2009), hopes that he will come and update flashrom-svn aren't big at all. So I suggest orphaning the package as well.

Thanks in advance.

P.S.: should we even keep a possibly unstable version of an utility that may erase your BIOS is another question (:
 
Old 06-25-2010, 11:39 AM
Thomas Dziedzic
 
Default Duplicates in AUR (flashrom-svn)

Please try contacting the maintainer first. Most packages which pull
directly from a repository need less updating compared to official
releases.

On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 1:43 AM, Anton Shestakov <engored@ya.ru> wrote:
> I want to bring attention to the following packages:
>
> flashrom-dev - http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=30391
> flashrom-svn - http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=23390
> flashrom-svn-new - http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=36865
>
> They all build flashrom from the same svn repo. The second package was the first one uploaded to AUR, but it have been last updated 25 Aug 2009 and doesn't contain libftdi dependence. I think we should remove flashrom-dev and flashrom-svn-new and keep flashrom-svn (it has more votes after all).
>
> I did not contact the maintainer of the second package, but judging by the last date he updated his packages (25 Aug 2009), hopes that he will come and update flashrom-svn aren't big at all. So I suggest orphaning the package as well.
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> P.S.: should we even keep a possibly unstable version of an utility that may erase your BIOS is another question (:
>
 
Old 07-02-2010, 08:33 AM
Anton Shestakov
 
Default Duplicates in AUR (flashrom-svn)

25.06.10, 20:39, "Thomas Dziedzic" <gostrc@gmail.com>:

> On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 1:43 AM, Anton Shestakov wrote:
> > I want to bring attention to the following packages:
> >
> > flashrom-dev - http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=30391
> > flashrom-svn - http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=23390
> > flashrom-svn-new - http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=36865
> >
> > They all build flashrom from the same svn repo. The second package was the first one uploaded to AUR, but it have been last updated 25 Aug 2009 and doesn't contain libftdi dependence. I think we should remove flashrom-dev and flashrom-svn-new and keep flashrom-svn (it has more votes after all).
> >
> > I did not contact the maintainer of the second package, but judging by the last date he updated his packages (25 Aug 2009), hopes that he will come and update flashrom-svn aren't big at all. So I suggest orphaning the package as well.
> >
> > Thanks in advance.
> >
> > P.S.: should we even keep a possibly unstable version of an utility that may erase your BIOS is another question (:
> >
>
> Please try contacting the maintainer first. Most packages which pull
> directly from a repository need less updating compared to official
> releases.
>

Well, did that; flagged the package as out-of-date and emailed its maintainer. One week has passed: no reply, no update.

So, back to the problem. flashrom-dev and flashrom-svn-new should be removed from AUR as duplicates and I suggest orphaning flashrom-svn.
 
Old 07-02-2010, 08:50 AM
Lukáš Jirkovský
 
Default Duplicates in AUR (flashrom-svn)

> Well, did that; flagged the package as out-of-date and emailed its maintainer. One week has passed: no reply, no update.
>
> So, back to the problem. flashrom-dev and flashrom-svn-new should be removed from AUR as duplicates and I suggest orphaning flashrom-svn.
>

I just tried to build flashrom-svn and it compiles fine so I see no
reason why flag it out of date.
 
Old 07-02-2010, 09:22 AM
Anton Shestakov
 
Default Duplicates in AUR (flashrom-svn)

02.07.10, 17:50, "Lukáš Jirkovský" <l.jirkovsky@gmail.com>:

> > Well, did that; flagged the package as out-of-date and emailed its maintainer. One week has passed: no reply, no update.
> >
> > So, back to the problem. flashrom-dev and flashrom-svn-new should be removed from AUR as duplicates and I suggest orphaning flashrom-svn.
> >
>
> I just tried to build flashrom-svn and it compiles fine so I see no
> reason why flag it out of date.
>
>
Right, I should have checked that, my bad. Yes, it builds fine. I looked at the official downloads page and it says libftdi is optional dependency. No idea why people created not one but two duplicates just to include libftdi as a dep.

You see, I don't use flashrom myself. It's just some day I've discovered 3 packages at AUR that build the same software from the same repo just a bit different, have just a bit different names and have just a bit different dependencies. Honestly, I don't think this is right, but I really don't mind leaving them be.
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 09:08 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org