Package Details: gopanda 2.7.4-1

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: 12
Popularity: 0.27
First Submitted: 2016-07-14 18:28
Last Updated: 2020-08-13 13:00

Dependencies (0)

Required by (0)

Sources (1)

Latest Comments

1 2 Next › Last »

a216 commented on 2020-08-26 02:39

Appreciate it, thanks for maintaining this @dakling!

dakling commented on 2020-08-13 13:04

Thanks - just pushed an update

a216 commented on 2020-08-12 22:01

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 again, maybe out of date?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

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

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

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

@ncwl maybe AppImage is a good choice for you.

ncwl commented on 2019-07-30 18:43

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

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

Much better. :)