Package Details: awatcher-bundle 0.3.3-2

Git Clone URL: https://aur.archlinux.org/awatcher.git (read-only, click to copy)
Package Base: awatcher
Description: Activity and idle watchers (bundled version)
Upstream URL: https://github.com/2e3s/awatcher
Licenses: MPL-2.0
Submitter: cuihao
Maintainer: cuihao
Last Packager: cuihao
Votes: 4
Popularity: 0.011918
First Submitted: 2024-02-07 18:39 (UTC)
Last Updated: 2026-03-05 05:39 (UTC)

Latest Comments

1 2 Next › Last »

missingnone commented on 2026-03-23 19:20 (UTC) (edited on 2026-03-23 19:24 (UTC) by missingnone)

failed to install for me too. Same error as the previous user ( in french but its the same) https://pastebin.com/TxdemyXu

Argon5504 commented on 2026-03-22 13:19 (UTC) (edited on 2026-05-10 11:12 (UTC) by Argon5504)

Failed to install for me https://pastebin.com/eP1RqBb8

marcool04 commented on 2026-03-08 07:39 (UTC)

Oh my bad. That is an unusual situation though for upstream to change to content and not the number... Thanks for the explanation 👍️

cuihao commented on 2026-03-07 17:24 (UTC)

@marcool04 That's the "old" 0.3.3 tarball. Make sure you remove the already downloaded file and download it again. The upstream released the version a second time without changing the version number thus the filename remains the same.

marcool04 commented on 2026-03-07 07:55 (UTC)

Seems to be a problem with the checksum. I have this on my end:

79ee24f811e93dd33d00f83477ef0d3b713cabe9f43c039115fcaf691ce5ceae

not

cee1645936c0941646563c2cb419ec1fdc2dba61a2a0582567eb1c9c27fcdce4

cuihao commented on 2026-01-11 17:36 (UTC)

Updated to 0.3.3.

Justification for the delay: The upstream repo didn't label versions after 0.3.1 as stable releases on GitHub -- 0.3.2 is marked as a "Pre-release" and 0.3.3 is merely a git tag. I'm inclined to believe these were just oversights.

D3SOX commented on 2025-09-14 10:30 (UTC) (edited on 2025-09-14 10:32 (UTC) by D3SOX)

Failed to compile for me. Log: https://pastebin.com/raw/LHnzyeYq

tippfehlr commented on 2025-07-11 06:58 (UTC)

Thanks for the change. According to the packaging guidelines, you should just remove rust and depend only on cargo, but since rustup provides rust it probably doesn't make a big difference.

cuihao commented on 2025-07-11 02:26 (UTC)

@marcool04 @tippfehlr Reasonable. PKGBUILD updated (without bumping pkgver).

marcool04 commented on 2025-07-10 13:57 (UTC)

I agree with tippfehlr. Considering that the rustup package provides rust, depending on rust rather than on rustup leaves the user free to install whichever they want.