Arch Linux User Repository

@saghm please read my response to your email, and once you are here I will disown it and give it back to you, I have only claimed it to prevent another party from interfering.

Do not give up the package based on miscommunication.

I've disowned it; feel free to take it yourself

@saghm add me as a co-maintainer and I can help you out :)

Downloading curseforge-0.218.1_8238.zip...
Validating source files with sha512sums...
curseforge-0.218.1_8238.zip ... FAILED
curseforge ... Passed
==> ERROR: One or more files did not pass the validity check!
-> error downloading sources: curseforge
context: exit status 1
==> Validating source files with sha512sums...
curseforge-0.218.1_8238.zip ... FAILED
curseforge ... Passed
==> ERROR: One or more files did not pass the validity check!

Firstly, you should always specify a licence, if you are unsure what license it is you set it to 'unknown', although this is heavily discoraged.

If you read the terms and conditions (also known as a LICENCE) you would know what the licence is, simply copy this content into a text file and distribute it with it under custom licence flag.

https://www.overwolf.com/legal/terms

Here is a little bit of advice, before you click download on a random link, read the conditions to identify what you are signing, in this case people who pulled this AUR package so far have agreed to a EULA without knowing it, and you distributed it without a licence, which could be copyright infringement.

Can you clarify what you mean by "the license of curseforge"? When I download the zip file, the only thing that it contains is the AppImage, and extracting that with --appimage-extract does not contain anything that appears to be a license for Curseforge. I do notice that there are licenses bundled for Chromium and Electron, so I'll update to add those, but it sounds like you're suggesting that there's a license for Curseforge itself, and I'm not sure where that's supposed to come from.

This package does not contain the license of curseforge, this needs to be added ASAP!

Awesome find! From trying it out locally, it seems like it works, so I've pushed a second release with that change. Obviously we won't know for 100% sure if it will work indefinitely until we get a couple more updates, but feel free to comment again/flag as out of date if it doesn't work (or if there are any other issues of course).

Thanks saghm! I'm not an PKGBUILD expert at all, but was just reading the docs for https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/PKGBUILD#Sources

Perhaps can use the suggestion in the unique pkg name comment:

source=('unique_package_name::file_uri'); e.g. source=("$pkgname-$pkgver.tar.gz::https://github.com/coder/program/archive/v$pkgver.tar.gz")

So when you bump the version a new src would download?

From trying this out on a freshly downloaded snapshot from this page, I'm not having this issue. Based on the output you provided, I'm guessing you have an old copy of curseforge-latest-linux.zip still in the directory that it's trying to validate the new checksum against (since the "Retrieving sources" step doesn't show a new download occurring). I'd suggest deleting that old zipfile and trying again.

I'd be open to suggestions for how to work around this in the PKGBUILD itself; it's a source of frustration for me as well that CurseForge doesn't include the version number in the name of the zipfile. I imagine there might be a way to specify in the source field the name of the extracted file rather than the zip, but I don't know what it is offhand.