Search Criteria
Package Details: calibre-installer 0.4-1
Package Actions
Git Clone URL: | https://aur.archlinux.org/calibre-installer.git (read-only, click to copy) |
---|---|
Package Base: | calibre-installer |
Description: | Automatically install and update the calibre standalone binaries |
Upstream URL: | https://github.com/eli-schwartz/calibre-installer |
Licenses: | GPL |
Conflicts: | calibre |
Submitter: | eschwartz |
Maintainer: | eschwartz |
Last Packager: | eschwartz |
Votes: | 16 |
Popularity: | 0.21 |
First Submitted: | 2015-03-24 22:58 (UTC) |
Last Updated: | 2017-08-02 07:17 (UTC) |
Latest Comments
MarsSeed commented on 2024-01-10 01:18 (UTC)
Please kindly use extra/calibre instead of this defunct and unneeded package.
aurel commented on 2023-05-22 17:48 (UTC) (edited on 2023-05-22 19:25 (UTC) by aurel)
when i do makepkg, it says this and it doesn't install, anyone has a fix from this btw i'm new to Linux so maybe its an error by me
==> Making package: calibre-installer 0.4-1 (Mon 22 May 2023 07:41:49 PM CEST) ==> Checking runtime dependencies... ==> Checking buildtime dependencies... ==> Retrieving sources... -> Found calibre-installer-0.4.tar.gz -> Found calibre-installer-0.4.tar.gz.sig ==> Validating source files with sha256sums... calibre-installer-0.4.tar.gz ... Passed calibre-installer-0.4.tar.gz.sig ... Skipped ==> Verifying source file signatures with gpg... calibre-installer-0.4.tar.gz ... FAILED (unknown public key CEB167EFB5722BD6) ==> ERROR: One or more PGP signatures could not be verified!
EDIT : For those who have a problem similar just do : gpg --recv-key CEB167EFB5722BD6
nimaipatel commented on 2021-06-29 07:28 (UTC)
Please add
libxkbcommon-x11
as a dependency. Without it, runningcalibre
gives this:eschwartz commented on 2018-01-08 19:14 (UTC)
I'm not sure you understand what the problem is or was. Try actually reading the wiki link, taking heed of the big blue notice.
Then realize this is an AUR package, and hence does not use pacman-key to check signatures.
tl;dr the AUR and the official repos are different. Also that bugreport is from today, and therefore didn't exist half a year ago...
snuffop commented on 2018-01-08 18:27 (UTC)
A better answer would have been to send them to the bug report found https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/57012 I would think. Wiki wouldn't help
eschwartz commented on 2018-01-08 18:15 (UTC)
Arch Linux is not stackoverflow, and directing a person to the canonical source of authoritative information about the issue is very much a good answer in this community.
Especially because the frontpage of the AUR instructs new users to read the Wiki page, and Arch Linux is a distribution that expects users to read the documentation.
But congratulations! You're your own worst example now.
snuffop commented on 2018-01-08 18:08 (UTC)
https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8231/are-answers-that-just-contain-links-elsewhere-really-good-answers
eschwartz commented on 2017-08-02 07:26 (UTC)
Plexcon commented on 2017-08-02 07:21 (UTC) (edited on 2017-08-02 07:27 (UTC) by Plexcon)