- EOL doesn't mean it is too old
- See comments by myself and MarsSeed re: 1- when (hasn't been a year) and
2- specious as, at the time, as it still installed a.o.k.
- Finally; I am working towards a solution which should be forthcoming very
soon. PLEASE give me some more time to work this out.
v
Thanks for the attention and there isn't a need to orphan this.
Previously this DID build 0.8.0, the problem was upstream in the source;
i.e. newer code inside an older directory numbering scheme ! (IT WASN"T a
build problem per se) - ANYWAYS/NONETHELESS this problem was fixed upstream
(after bein
Nothing wrong with this package.geeshIt compiles/installs fine.
Further; at one time the other packages that are listed as conflicts WERE
extent in the aur and thereby MIGHT exist on someone's systemdouble
geesh.
Please do not orphan on this basis.
TIA
not_anonymous
On Sat, Nov 9, 2
O.K So I decided to implement a fix for the upstream problem(s).
PLEASE do not Orphan this. TIA
On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 9:48 AM wrote:
> Specificallythis is what shows up currently:
>
> python-branca]$ ls -al src/
> branca-0.7.2/ python-branca-0.8.0.tar.gz
>
> SIGH
>
> On
Specificallythis is what shows up currently:
python-branca]$ ls -al src/
branca-0.7.2/ python-branca-0.8.0.tar.gz
SIGH
On Sun, Aug 25, 2024 at 3:47 PM wrote:
> PLEASE NOTE:
>
> Please read my last comment here:
>
> https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/python-branca
>
> I.E... T
RE: PRQ#62456 :
Package is now updated. As for my "timely-ness" please consider the
following:
WHEN you are NOT logged into aur, the web page for this package currently
does NOT show any "out-of-date" flagging !
I am sorry that I missed any notification PLEASE do NOT orphan this
package.
RE: PRQ#62455 :
Package is now UPDATED. As for my "timely-ness" please consider the
following:
WHEN you are NOT logged into aur, the web page for this package currently
does NOT show any "out-of-date" flagging !
I am sorry that I missed any notification PLEASE do NOT orphan this
package.
PLEASE NOTE:
Please read my last comment here:
https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/python-branca
I.E... This package is NOT out -of-date, but rather there are problems with
the package UPSTREAM. (And I have NO control over this.)
On Tue, Aug 20, 2024 at 4:43 PM wrote:
> MarsSeed [1] filed an o
RE: PRQ#62453 :
Package is now updated. As for my "timely-ness" please consider the
following:
WHEN you are NOT logged into aur, the web page for this package currently
does NOT show any "out-of-date" flagging !
I am sorry that I missed any notification Please do not orphan this
package.
I went ahead and "updated" the PKGBUILD because namcap reports "custom: "
in the license field as wrong ALBEIT the Pcakge Guidelines published in the
wiki declare otherwise...sigh.
On Mon, May 13, 2024 at 6:43 AM wrote:
> RE: Orphan request for trustedqsl - PRQ#60221
>
> In fact this package alr
RE: Orphan Request for gpredict PRQ#60227
FIXED -
On Mon, May 13, 2024 at 6:22 AM wrote:
> Coelacanthus [1] filed an orphan request for gpredict [2]:
>
> This package doesn't follow licenses section of Package Guideline and
> RFC 16. I submitted a comment on AUR but received no response or
> up
RE: Orphan request for trustedqsl - PRQ#60221
In fact this package already conforms to the Package Guidelines, as
currently published:
"
For custom licenses the identifier should be either LicenseRef-license-name
or custom:license-name, if they are not covered by the common families
mentioned abo
I just now disowned the package.
(I trust that the attributions/credits for previous work will remain.)
On Sat, Jan 20, 2024 at 4:17 PM wrote:
> muflone [1] filed an orphan request for rapidsvn [2]:
>
> the package doesn't build and the maintainer has refused to fix the
> package
>
> [1] https:
Well it's not a "duplicate" as it includes INDI support (amongst other
things...).
I have updated the description to indicate this.
On Tue, Nov 14, 2023 at 5:32 AM wrote:
> MarsSeed [1] filed a deletion request for hamlib4 [2]:
>
> Unneeded, one point release older (4.5.4) duplicate of extra re
Just built both gnucash-git and gnucash-docs-git THRICE over the past two
daysNot sure what problem you are experiencing,but perhaps IO can help
you with some kind of feedback from you.
On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 6:40 PM Marcell Meszaros
wrote:
> No, it doesn't build.
>
>
> On 20 December 2023
But it DOES build !!! Just now did same. Really. Honest 'injun. truly. AND
it DOES supply the "docs" package to the main program; gnucash-git. (Which
also builds and runs too.)
On Tue, Dec 19, 2023 at 3:46 PM Marcell Meszaros
wrote:
> It is not useful to keep a package that fails to build due to
This should remain separate much as the gnucash version release and
gnucash-docs version release are separate in the extra repos. FURTHER, it
is up to date and does compile and work, as does gnucash-git.
Best regards - Not_Anonymous
On Fri, Nov 17, 2023 at 6:48 AM wrote:
> MarsSeed [1] filed a
My response;
Using caps for single words is not necessarily shouting, and I am sorry if
the fellow took it that way.
^^ It can also mean emphasis... !!
More to the point:
- I was not aware it was expected that I respond to problems that are
upstream, and cannot be fixed by myself.
- I cannot
18 matches
Mail list logo
