Hello,

shotwell is here:

http://www.archlinux.org/packages/community/i686/shotwell/


and it's marked out of date.


And shotwell also is here:

http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=48503

Here I don't know if it's up to date...

But it uses git,.. can this just be rebuilt from git,
even the package itsels is old?


Also it confuses me that shotwell is on http://www.archlinux.org
as well as http://aur.archlinux.org

Can you explain me this?
And: can the package maintainers be reminded to update?

Shotwell 0.12.1 is out since a whiole and maybe even a newer verison
(0.13.x) is underway...


Ciao,
Oliver

On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 18:13:24 +0200, oliver <oliver@first.in-berlin.de>
wrote:



Also it confuses me that shotwell is on http://www.archlinux.org
as well as http://aur.archlinux.org


You can put any package in the AUR as long as it doesn't use the exact
same name as some package from the official repos.

shotwell v. shotwell-git is fine.

There are tons of such packages. There's usually just one version of a
package in the official repos but the AUR can have multiple ones: -git,
-light, -no-foo etc.

On 08/04/12 18:15, Karol Błażewicz wrote:
> On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 18:13:24 +0200, oliver <oliver@first.in-berlin.de>
> wrote:
>
>> Also it confuses me that shotwell is on http://www.archlinux.org
>> as well as http://aur.archlinux.org
>
> You can put any package in the AUR as long as it doesn't use the exact
> same name as some package from the official repos.
> shotwell v. shotwell-git is fine.
>
> There are tons of such packages. There's usually just one version of a
> package in the official repos but the AUR can have multiple ones: -git,
> -light, -no-foo etc.

Sergej is inactive atm, i will look into updating it

--
Jelle van der Waa

On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 21:36:10 +0200, Jelle van der Waa <jelle@vdwaa.nl>
wrote:



Sergej is inactive atm, i will look into updating it


Indeed he is
http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2012-March/018196.html
but I don't see the status change
https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Trusted_Users#Inactive_Trusted_Users
neither for him nor for Alexander Rødseth
http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2012-April/018382.html


I know this wiki page is still used by some TUs.


Sorry for off-topic / little ol' rant.

On Sun, Apr 08, 2012 at 09:36:10PM +0200, Jelle van der Waa wrote:
> On 08/04/12 18:15, Karol Błażewicz wrote:
> > On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 18:13:24 +0200, oliver <oliver@first.in-berlin.de>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Also it confuses me that shotwell is on http://www.archlinux.org
> >> as well as http://aur.archlinux.org
> >
> > You can put any package in the AUR as long as it doesn't use the exact
> > same name as some package from the official repos.
> > shotwell v. shotwell-git is fine.
> >
> > There are tons of such packages. There's usually just one version of a
> > package in the official repos but the AUR can have multiple ones: -git,
> > -light, -no-foo etc.
>
> Sergej is inactive atm, i will look into updating it
[...]

Yes, would be fine to have a newer shotwell.

When I tried to build shotwell from the AUR package
http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=48503
it tried to load "libgexiv2-git".

But that package does not exist.

There only is the package "libgexiv2-git 20110430-1".

So either libgexiv2-git 20110430-1 must be used in the
shotwell package, or maybe the "libgexiv2-git 20110430-1"
will not work togehter with that shotwell version.

Or maybe only "libgexiv2" should be given as dependency, which
is avaialable via pacman. But I don't know if that version
of "libgexiv2" might give problems.


Any ideas on this?

Or would you like to update the shotwell stuff soon?
This would be fine.

Ciao,
Oliver

On Mon, Apr 09, 2012 at 03:53:27PM +0200, oliver wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 08, 2012 at 09:36:10PM +0200, Jelle van der Waa wrote:
> > On 08/04/12 18:15, Karol Błażewicz wrote:
> > > On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 18:13:24 +0200, oliver <oliver@first.in-berlin.de>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Also it confuses me that shotwell is on http://www.archlinux.org
> > >> as well as http://aur.archlinux.org
> > >
> > > You can put any package in the AUR as long as it doesn't use the exact
> > > same name as some package from the official repos.
> > > shotwell v. shotwell-git is fine.
> > >
> > > There are tons of such packages. There's usually just one version of a
> > > package in the official repos but the AUR can have multiple ones: -git,
> > > -light, -no-foo etc.
> >
> > Sergej is inactive atm, i will look into updating it
> [...]
>
> Yes, would be fine to have a newer shotwell.
>
> When I tried to build shotwell from the AUR package
> http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=48503
> it tried to load "libgexiv2-git".
[...]


When I just change "libgexiv2-git" to "libgexiv2"
in the dependency list, then again package build fails,
because there is no vala >= 0.15.2.

So, here are some more probllems...


Ciao,
Oliver

You should write that into the comments section of the package.

oliver <oliver@first.in-berlin.de> wrote:

On Mon, Apr 09, 2012 at 03:53:27PM +0200, oliver wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 08, 2012 at 09:36:10PM +0200, Jelle van der Waa wrote:
> > On 08/04/12 18:15, Karol Błażewicz wrote:
> > > On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 18:13:24 +0200, oliver <oliver@first.in-berlin.de>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Also it confuses me that shotwell is on http://www.archlinux.org
> > >> as well as http://aur.archlinux.org
> > >
> > > You can put any package in the AUR as long as it doesn't use the exact
> > > same name as some package from the official repos.
> > > shotwell v. shotwell-git is fine.
> > >
> > > There are tons of such packages. There's usually just one version of a
> > > package in the official repos but the AUR can have multiple ones: -git,
> > > -light, -no-foo etc.
> >
> > Sergej is inactive atm, i will look into updating it
> [...]
>
> Yes, would be fine to have a newer shotwell.
>
> When I tried to build shotwell from the AUR package
> http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=48503
> it tried to load "libgexiv2-git".
[...]


When I just change "libgexiv2-git" to "libgexiv2"
in the dependency list, then again package build fails,
because there is no vala >= 0.15.2.

So, here are some more probllems...


Ciao,
Oliver

On Mon, Apr 09, 2012 at 04:23:23PM +0200, Markus Unterwaditzer wrote:
> You should write that into the comments section of the package.
[...]


OK, yes, good idea.

Done.


Ciao,
Oliver

On 09/04/12 16:53, oliver wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 09, 2012 at 04:23:23PM +0200, Markus Unterwaditzer wrote:
>> You should write that into the comments section of the package.
> [...]
>
>
> OK, yes, good idea.
>
> Done.
>
>
> Ciao,
> Oliver
Shotwell requires vala > 0.15, we have vala 0.16 in [testing] so the new
shotwell is now in [community-testing] along with the updated libgevix.
As soon as vala will move, shotwell will move too.

--
Jelle van der Waa