loudmouth and gossip

Brice · 2004-01-24 01:07:17

I've uploaded these on incoming.
Hope that I didn't made a mistake doing so.

red_over_blue · 2004-01-24 01:46:13

Brice... I have decided that I'm going to become the "Please post your PKGBUILD when you contribute something to incoming cop". So, please do if it wouldn't be too much trouble.

Thanks alot.

Brice · 2004-01-24 01:51:48

euh I think I did so...
I posted :
- gossip-0.7.1-1.tar.gz
- loudmouth-0.15.1-1.tar.gz
and :
[root@cloud local]# tar xfvz gossip-0.7.1-1.tar.gz
gossip/
gossip/PKGBUILD
gossip/filelist
gossip/gossip-0.7.1-1.pkg.tar.gz

and :
[root@cloud local]# tar xfvz loudmouth-0.15.1-1.tar.gz
loudmouth/
loudmouth/PKGBUILD
loudmouth/loudmouth-0.15.1-1.pkg.tar.gz
loudmouth/filelist

Should I post the PKGBUILD apart from the package ? somewhere else ?

sarah31 · 2004-01-24 02:07:03

he means in this forum.

Brice · 2004-01-24 02:11:05

# Contributor: Brice Carpentier <brice.carpentier@orange.fr>
pkgname=loudmouth
pkgver=0.15.1
pkgrel=1
pkgdesc="a lightweight Jabber client library written in C/Glib"
url="http://www.imendio.com/projects/loudmouth"
depends=('glib2>=2.0.3' 'gnutls' 'pkgconfig')
conflicts=()
backup=()
source=(ftp://ftp.gnome.org/pub/gnome/sources/$pkgname/0.15/$pkgname-$pkgver.tar.gz)
md5sums=('95ee161c38832eb9867b6d0ca7b1cca3')

build() {
cd $startdir/src/$pkgname-$pkgver
./configure --prefix=/usr
make || return 1
make prefix=$startdir/pkg/usr install
}

Brice · 2004-01-24 02:11:53

# Contributor: Brice Carpentier <brice.carpentier@orange.fr>
pkgname=gossip
pkgver=0.7.1
pkgrel=1
pkgdesc="a gnome jabber client"
url="http://www.imendio.com/projects/gossip/"
depends=('glib2>=2.0.3' 'gtk2' 'libglade' 'gconf>=1.2' 'libgnomeui' 'pkgconfig' 'intltool' 'loudmouth>=0.15')
conflicts=()
backup=()
source=(ftp://ftp.gnome.org/pub/gnome/sources/$pkgname/0.7/$pkgname-$pkgver.tar.gz)
md5sums=('d9f2df93bc4def819855cda54b5ab9bb')

build() {
cd $startdir/src/$pkgname-$pkgver
./configure --prefix=/usr
make || return 1
make prefix=$startdir/pkg/usr install
}

contrasutra · 2004-01-24 03:37:20

They are already in my TUR, so you dont upload to incoming, you just email me or post in the forums.

I'll update them.

Brice · 2004-01-24 08:40:55

TURs...
ok, i won't upload them to incoming anymore.
But I won't get them from your TUR instead.
You all should understand that noone can "subscribe" to all TURs, for obvious reasons.
And getting manually a specific package from a TUR take away one of pacman's best interests : the "fetch" fonctionnality.
I know checking packages must be damn hard and time-taker, but (imho) TURs are not a usable opinion.
Just my 2¢

Xentac · 2004-01-24 11:00:49

If a package is in a user repo it can also exist in incoming, because packages in a user's repo aren't considered for inclusion anywhere. If it's in staging, then it shouldn't be in incoming.

Xentac · 2004-01-24 11:05:38

Brice wrote:

TURs...
ok, i won't upload them to incoming anymore.
But I won't get them from your TUR instead.
You all should understand that noone can "subscribe" to all TURs, for obvious reasons.
And getting manually a specific package from a TUR take away one of pacman's best interests : the "fetch" fonctionnality.
I know checking packages must be damn hard and time-taker, but (imho) TURs are not a usable opinion.
Just my 2¢

I don't quite understand.

What are the obvious reasons that you can't "subscribe" (what do you mean by subscribe?) to all the TURs?

Fetch functionality is nice; how does incoming let you use pacman to fetch packages?

Why aren't TURs a usable option? I don't understand. I sure hope you're not basing your judgement on what you think TURs are or how they were being used before, becasue things have changed quite a bit. You also didn't bring these up anytime but now so I didn't even know you cared until you said they were unusable.

Brice · 2004-01-24 13:31:36

Oh, sure I base my judgement on what I think they are, and on how they were used at the begining. How else could I do ?
And above all I base my judgment on the disclaimer related on TURs.
I'd like to keep it simple and I'm afraid that multiplying sources for packages will lead to problems. Of course, I may be wrong.
Of course incoming doesn't allow me directly to fetch packages. Still a package in incoming will be put in either stable extra or unstable and then will be fetchable...
And I didn't bring these criticisms up sooner cause I didn't thought about it sooner
Just my 2¢

contrasutra · 2004-01-24 17:42:39

Actually, it wont get into the real repos without going through TURs (I think). If I understand it correctly, it goes like this:

incoming --> User TUR --> STAGING --> Extra Repo

I will move gossip and loudmouth to staging, because they've been in my TUR for a while, and work fine.

TURs are fetchable from pacman, read the site a little more.

Jason: I emailed you DAYS ago, and you still haven't moved the packages to staging. I have dialup, remember. Here's the packages that should be in STAGING:

bmp
dosbox
lcms
sound-juicer
peacock
hwd
audacity-unstable (if thats allowed)
xpad
tla
lwm
windowlab
xv
gtkspell
neverball
ttf-cheapskate
smclone
libxml++
chromium
passepartout
materm
seahorse
parse-yapp
libavc1294
xml-dom
xml-xql
xml-regexp
inkscape
kino
liferea
gossip
loudmouth

sarah31 · 2004-01-24 18:13:44

oh boo hoo i have dialup

if it s such an issue why did you endeavour in a job that would require the benefits of highspeed?

farphel · 2004-01-24 18:22:41

contrasutra wrote:

Actually, it wont get into the real repos without going through TURs (I think). If I understand it correctly, it goes like this:
incoming --> User TUR --> STAGING --> Extra Repo

I could use some clarification on this point too. I thought that the process was:

incoming --> testing/verification by TUs --> STAGING --> Extra

I thought that packages in the TURs were for things that weren't going to be included in Extra (BETAS, CVS, optimized, special compilation options, etc).

If it works this way, then users can add 'staging' to their /etc/pacman.conf and know that there will not be conflicting packages from TURs or extra. The TURs on the other hand can contain anything and one TUR might (although probably not) contain a duplicate package.

This separation of use for TURs and 'staging' satisfies both audiences; users wanting bleeding edge can use TURs, and users that want more stable software (but can't wait for it to be included in extra) can use 'staging'.

Like I said, this was _my_ interpretation. Please correct me if I'm wrong!

Cheers,
farphel

Xentac · 2004-01-24 20:43:23

contrasutra wrote:

Actually, it wont get into the real repos without going through TURs (I think). If I understand it correctly, it goes like this:
incoming --> User TUR --> STAGING --> Extra Repo

I will move gossip and loudmouth to staging, because they've been in my TUR for a while, and work fine.
TURs are fetchable from pacman, read the site a little more.
Jason: I emailed you DAYS ago, and you still haven't moved the packages to staging. I have dialup, remember. Here's the packages that should be in STAGING:
bmp
dosbox
lcms
sound-juicer
peacock
hwd
audacity-unstable (if thats allowed)
xpad
tla
lwm
windowlab
xv
gtkspell
neverball
ttf-cheapskate
smclone
libxml++
chromium
passepartout
materm
seahorse
parse-yapp
libavc1294
xml-dom
xml-xql
xml-regexp
inkscape
kino
liferea
gossip
loudmouth

Close, take out the part about them going to the user repo. I never wanted that and never said it like that. It's like farphel says.

I will move those. I ran into same technical difficulties yesterday and forgot about you before then. Sadly, I'm still not your servent.

DAYS ago, eh? You emailed thursday. I was busy thursday and friday and now today is saturday. Don't get your panties in a knot.

Arch Linux

#1 2004-01-24 01:07:17

loudmouth and gossip

#2 2004-01-24 01:46:13

Re: loudmouth and gossip

#3 2004-01-24 01:51:48

Re: loudmouth and gossip

#4 2004-01-24 02:07:03

Re: loudmouth and gossip

#5 2004-01-24 02:11:05

Re: loudmouth and gossip

#6 2004-01-24 02:11:53

Re: loudmouth and gossip

#7 2004-01-24 03:37:20

Re: loudmouth and gossip

#8 2004-01-24 08:40:55

Re: loudmouth and gossip

#9 2004-01-24 11:00:49

Re: loudmouth and gossip

#10 2004-01-24 11:05:38

Re: loudmouth and gossip

#11 2004-01-24 13:31:36

Re: loudmouth and gossip

#12 2004-01-24 17:42:39

Re: loudmouth and gossip

#13 2004-01-24 18:13:44

Re: loudmouth and gossip

#14 2004-01-24 18:22:41

Re: loudmouth and gossip

#15 2004-01-24 20:43:23

Re: loudmouth and gossip

Board footer