Package Details: gopanda 2.7.14-1

Git Clone URL: (read-only, click to copy)
Package Base: gopanda
Description: Client for the Pandanet-IGS go Server
Upstream URL:
Keywords: game go pandanet
Licenses: custom
Submitter: smonff
Maintainer: levinit (dakling)
Last Packager: dakling
Votes: 13
Popularity: 0.000573
First Submitted: 2016-07-14 18:28 (UTC)
Last Updated: 2022-05-17 14:48 (UTC)

Dependencies (0)

Required by (0)

Sources (1)

Latest Comments

E3LDDfrK commented on 2021-08-13 02:07 (UTC)

@dakling No worries. Thanks for maintaining the package. It's sad that all go clients are problematic in some ways. I guess the game can't attract good devs.

dakling commented on 2021-08-06 08:57 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting - pushed a fix.

I guess the problem is that GoPanda updates always lead to a checksum fail, but since the GoPanda devs release all AppImages under the same URL, I am not sure what to do about that.

E3LDDfrK commented on 2021-08-05 21:21 (UTC)

Another checksum fail. It's unfortunate there is no maintainer for this.

dakling commented on 2020-12-15 17:05 (UTC)

Thanks for the report - should be fixed now.

By the way, I don't really use Arch anymore, if anyone wants to co-maintain this package, let me know!

whizzo commented on 2020-12-15 01:09 (UTC) (edited on 2020-12-15 01:10 (UTC) by whizzo)

Validation error again.

==> Validando los archivos source_x86_64 con md5sums...
    GoPanda2.AppImage ... HA FALLADO
==> ERROR: ¡Uno o más archivos no superaron el control de validación!
Error: Error al compilar gopanda

a216 commented on 2020-08-26 02:39 (UTC)

Appreciate it, thanks for maintaining this @dakling!

dakling commented on 2020-08-13 13:04 (UTC)

Thanks - just pushed an update

a216 commented on 2020-08-12 22:01 (UTC)

Just got the same ERROR: One or more files did not pass the validity check! again, maybe out of date?

dakling commented on 2020-07-08 18:13 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know - I just updated to the latest version, it should work now. Let me know if it still doesn't work.

senchaboi commented on 2020-07-08 17:44 (UTC) (edited on 2020-07-08 17:46 (UTC) by senchaboi)

I'm getting this

==> Validating source_x86_64 files with md5sums...

GoPanda2.AppImage ... FAILED

==> ERROR: One or more files did not pass the validity check!

dakling commented on 2020-03-26 15:38 (UTC)

I have created a new PKGBUILD which installs the AppImage. Would one have to create a new package named gopanda-appimage (or something like that), or is it better to update the PKGBUILD of the existing gopanda package?

levinit commented on 2019-11-13 12:21 (UTC)

@ncwl maybe AppImage is a good choice for you.

ncwl commented on 2019-07-30 18:43 (UTC) (edited on 2019-07-30 18:43 (UTC) by ncwl)

Could I ask here whether you might consider packaging as flatpak or snap and publishing the package on its store to ease the installation on more GNU/Linux distributions?

smonff commented on 2016-10-19 21:01 (UTC) (edited on 2016-10-19 21:07 (UTC) by smonff)

I disowned the package. @AK_IL is now the maintainer. By creating this package, I wished that the installation of GoPanda, the client for this very important online Go game community, could be easier and integrated to the normal process of packages installation through AUR. I never claimed to be a good packager, and @AK_IL made a very good job of "sanitizing" my initial "ugly" contribution. Though, it was only a contribution, and I have been chocked of some comment, qualifying the package of "terrible". I actually did read the documentation before trying. Usually, Archlinux documentation is *very good*, but honestly, I am not sure thar all the keys of a good packaging process are available in the AUR packaging related doc. Or maybe, before of qualifying publicly the work of a beginner of "terrible" (assuming a very clear superiority), contacting me could have been appropriate. My experience of contributing to AUR have been quite rude and, it is not the kind of community where I would feel safe, that is kind of a problem in the "free" software community.

WorMzy commented on 2016-10-06 20:29 (UTC)

Much better. :)

alexkubica commented on 2016-10-06 19:12 (UTC)

I have updated the package.

alexkubica commented on 2016-10-03 16:26 (UTC)

I have opened a post regarding the install script:

smonff commented on 2016-10-03 13:18 (UTC) (edited on 2016-10-03 13:32 (UTC) by smonff)

Your comments are appreciated. This is very young package, we'll try to improve the packaging standards and fix what is an offense for common sense.

WorMzy commented on 2016-10-03 11:19 (UTC) (edited on 2016-10-03 11:22 (UTC) by WorMzy)

This package is terrible. Not only do you run an interactive script that installs directly into a users home directory, you call sudo during the package function. At the end of the package function, you haven't actually packaged /anything/. Please fix this. As it stands, nobody should use this PKGBUILD. Please read

alexkubica commented on 2016-10-03 11:16 (UTC)

Finally got it to work by installing the packages: lib32-nss lib32-gconf lib32-pango lib32-libxcomposite lib32-gtk2 lib32-libnotify I found these packages by running ldd /usr/bin/gopanda2 | grep "not found" which got me the missing binaries and using pkgfile I got their packages. I think they should be added to the dependencies array.

alexkubica commented on 2016-10-03 10:22 (UTC) (edited on 2016-10-03 10:23 (UTC) by alexkubica)

The package does not work, I get this error when running: "gopanda2: error while loading shared libraries: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory". Also, I have a few comments for this PKGBUILD: 1. Instead of printing the license, you should include it in the package, see: 2. The installation should be non-interactive as mentioned on the note in:, I know it's the installation script to blame but maybe we can do something about that. 3. You shouldn't create the symlink in /usr/bin/gopanda2 but in "${pkgdir}/usr/bin/gopanda2", see the second note in: 4. If you install the package in /usr/bin/gopanda2, why note name the package gopanda2? 5. I think you should delete the comments because they're quite meaningless. 6. For supporting i686 architecture too maybe we could use the $CARCH variable, or create another package just for that. Thanks for packaging though, I do appreciate it. I'd be glad to be a co-maintainer for this package if you want me to.