On 30/06/10 06:08, C Anthony Risinger wrote:
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 1:18 PM, Pierre Chapuis wrote:
"C Anthony Risinger" a écrit :
beh, i thought you were onto something... i didn't look at the makepkg
sources, but it is treating PKGDEST='"" as if it was never set. so,
no dice :-(
however
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 1:18 PM, Pierre Chapuis wrote:
>
> "C Anthony Risinger" a écrit :
>
>>beh, i thought you were onto something... i didn't look at the makepkg
>>sources, but it is treating PKGDEST='"" as if it was never set. so,
>>no dice :-(
>>
>>however, if i use an absolute path (instea
"C Anthony Risinger" a écrit :
>beh, i thought you were onto something... i didn't look at the makepkg
>sources, but it is treating PKGDEST='"" as if it was never set. so,
>no dice :-(
>
>however, if i use an absolute path (instead of ".") it works alright.
>in fact, i seem to have general prob
On 30 June 2010 01:38, C Anthony Risinger wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 12:26 PM, Ray Kohler wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 1:20 PM, C Anthony Risinger wrote:
>>> On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 2:29 AM, Attila wrote:
At Samstag, 26. Juni 2010 07:38 Ray Rashif wrote:
> [1] http://ww
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 12:26 PM, Ray Kohler wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 1:20 PM, C Anthony Risinger wrote:
>> On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 2:29 AM, Attila wrote:
>>> At Samstag, 26. Juni 2010 07:38 Ray Rashif wrote:
>>>
[1] http://www.mail-archive.com/pacman-...@archlinux.org/msg03794.html
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 1:20 PM, C Anthony Risinger wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 2:29 AM, Attila wrote:
>> At Samstag, 26. Juni 2010 07:38 Ray Rashif wrote:
>>
>>> [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/pacman-...@archlinux.org/msg03794.html
>>
>> Thanks for this information. It seems that at no poi
On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 2:29 AM, Attila wrote:
> At Samstag, 26. Juni 2010 07:38 Ray Rashif wrote:
>
>> [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/pacman-...@archlinux.org/msg03794.html
>
> Thanks for this information. It seems that at no point it was thought about a
> config variable and therefore we have t
At Samstag, 26. Juni 2010 07:38 Ray Rashif wrote:
> [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/pacman-...@archlinux.org/msg03794.html
Thanks for this information. It seems that at no point it was thought about a
config variable and therefore we have to live with it.
See you, Attila
On 26 June 2010 00:59, Attila wrote:
> At Freitag, 25. Juni 2010 08:29 Ray Rashif wrote:
>
>> In what kind of situation would someone have something against that symlink?
>
> If you don't ordered it? -) Okay without joking: I think everyone will have
> something against a thing what he never needs
At Freitag, 25. Juni 2010 08:29 Ray Rashif wrote:
> In what kind of situation would someone have something against that symlink?
If you don't ordered it? -) Okay without joking: I think everyone will have
something against a thing what he never needs and i'm surprised that no one
recognize this
On 25 June 2010 01:37, Attila wrote:
> At Donnerstag, 24. Juni 2010 14:39 Hilton Medeiros wrote:
>
>> Just remove it: rm -f goddamn-symlink.so
>> What is exactly the problem with it anyway?
>
> Your hint is not very productive because you confound cause and effect. The
> problem is not to delete t
At Donnerstag, 24. Juni 2010 20:06 Andres P wrote:
> ...but that's the whole point of bash/zsh completion. Do you put links to
$HOME
> in /etc or use CDPATH? I mean, modern shells have facilities so let's use
them.
You be right and if you look at my other posting my favorite is that pacman can
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 1:07 PM, Attila wrote:
> For me this link is now a good help (and memory) to run namcap which i forgot
> in
> the most cases and therefore i found my peace with it. But i can understand
> the
> wish for a config variable if some don't need this.
...but that's the whole p
At Donnerstag, 24. Juni 2010 14:39 Hilton Medeiros wrote:
> Just remove it: rm -f goddamn-symlink.so
> What is exactly the problem with it anyway?
Your hint is not very productive because you confound cause and effect. The
problem is not to delete this file because i think everyone here can use
On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 07:25:54 -0500
ProfessorTomoe wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-06-23 at 19:08 +0200, Attila wrote:
>
> > > Is there a way to disable the symbolic link creation? I install
> > > aur packages using makepkg -ci, but the -ci switch combo does not
> > > delete the symlink. I don't want the
On Wed, 2010-06-23 at 19:08 +0200, Attila wrote:
> > Is there a way to disable the symbolic link creation? I install aur
> > packages using makepkg -ci, but the -ci switch combo does not delete
> > the symlink. I don't want them created in the first place, so can I
> > somehow turn off this beha
At Mittwoch, 23. Juni 2010 14:20 ProfessorTomoe wrote:
> Is there a way to disable the symbolic link creation? I install aur
> packages using makepkg -ci, but the -ci switch combo does not delete
> the symlink. I don't want them created in the first place, so can I
> somehow turn off this behavi
At Mittwoch, 23. Juni 2010 07:26 Allan McRae wrote:
>> Or do you mean that a "makepkg -c" will clean elder invalid symlinks?
>
> This one.
Is there a way to delete not only elder symlinks and the destination too? Could
be very nice but is not a must.-)
See you, Attila
Is there a way to disable the symbolic link creation? I install aur
packages using makepkg -ci, but the -ci switch combo does *not* delete
the symlink. I don't want them created in the first place, so can I
somehow turn off this behavior?
At Mittwoch, 23. Juni 2010 06:06 Dan McGee wrote:
> It is also a very helpful symlink for those of us that like to run
> namcap after building to check the package.
I must correct myself and have a from my view better idea for this.
I suggest a new option "-n" (or "--namcap") which runs namacp a
At Mittwoch, 23. Juni 2010 06:06 Dan McGee wrote:
> It is also a very helpful symlink for those of us that like to run
> namcap after building to check the package.
That is an advantage ... because i forgot in the most cases to run it and now
the motivation to do it is higher.-)
See you, Attila
On 23/06/10 15:11, Attila wrote:
Or do you mean that a "makepkg -c" will clean elder invalid symlinks?
This one.
At Mittwoch, 23. Juni 2010 05:48 Allan McRae wrote:
> Possibly... I do not use "makepkg -i" as I use "makepkg -sr" so it
> removed the makedepends that will be unneeded in the future. Using
> "makepkg -c" clean up the dangling symlinks.
I even use "makepkg -c" too and the symlink is still t
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 10:48 PM, Allan McRae wrote:
> On 23/06/10 10:47, Ng Oon-Ee wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 7:31 AM, Allan McRae wrote:
>>>
>>> On 23/06/10 07:01, Attila wrote:
Hello together,
since the new pacman a makepkg run creates a symlink to the package fil
On 23/06/10 10:47, Ng Oon-Ee wrote:
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 7:31 AM, Allan McRae wrote:
On 23/06/10 07:01, Attila wrote:
Hello together,
since the new pacman a makepkg run creates a symlink to the package file
in the
directory of the PKGBUILD. Example:
# ls -l *.gz
opera-snapshot-10.60-6378
On 23/06/10 11:55, Baho Utot wrote:
On 06/22/10 19:31, Allan McRae wrote:
On 23/06/10 07:01, Attila wrote:
Hello together,
since the new pacman a makepkg run creates a symlink to the package
file in the
directory of the PKGBUILD. Example:
# ls -l *.gz
opera-snapshot-10.60-6378.2ah-i686.pkg.ta
On 06/22/10 19:31, Allan McRae wrote:
On 23/06/10 07:01, Attila wrote:
Hello together,
since the new pacman a makepkg run creates a symlink to the package
file in the
directory of the PKGBUILD. Example:
# ls -l *.gz
opera-snapshot-10.60-6378.2ah-i686.pkg.tar.gz ->
/server/work/archlinux/repo/o
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 7:31 AM, Allan McRae wrote:
> On 23/06/10 07:01, Attila wrote:
>>
>> Hello together,
>>
>> since the new pacman a makepkg run creates a symlink to the package file
>> in the
>> directory of the PKGBUILD. Example:
>>
>> # ls -l *.gz
>> opera-snapshot-10.60-6378.2ah-i686.pkg.
On 23/06/10 07:01, Attila wrote:
Hello together,
since the new pacman a makepkg run creates a symlink to the package file in the
directory of the PKGBUILD. Example:
# ls -l *.gz
opera-snapshot-10.60-6378.2ah-i686.pkg.tar.gz ->
/server/work/archlinux/repo/opera-snapshot-10.60-6378.2ah-i686.pkg.t
Hello together,
since the new pacman a makepkg run creates a symlink to the package file in the
directory of the PKGBUILD. Example:
# ls -l *.gz
opera-snapshot-10.60-6378.2ah-i686.pkg.tar.gz ->
/server/work/archlinux/repo/opera-snapshot-10.60-6378.2ah-i686.pkg.tar.gz
My differences to makepkg.
30 matches
Mail list logo
