FadeMind, I'm a little unclear: is there something here I need to fix?
I just did `pacman -Rsn downgrade && aurget -S downgrade` and did not receive any warnings.
Search Criteria
Package Details: downgrade 5.3.0-1
| Git Clone URL: | https://aur.archlinux.org/downgrade.git (read-only) |
|---|---|
| Package Base: | downgrade |
| Description: | Bash script for downgrading one or more packages to a version in your cache or the A.R.M. |
| Upstream URL: | https://github.com/pbrisbin/downgrade |
| Licenses: | |
| Submitter: | brisbin33 |
| Maintainer: | brisbin33 |
| Last Packager: | brisbin33 |
| Votes: | 398 |
| Popularity: | 7.398516 |
| First Submitted: | 2009-11-12 01:48 |
| Last Updated: | 2016-07-02 15:13 |
Dependencies (1)
- sudo (nosudo, sudo-masochist, sudo-selinux) (optional) – for installation via sudo
Required by (2)
Sources (1)
Latest Comments
brisbin33 commented on 2016-02-01 15:45
FadeMind commented on 2016-02-01 13:54
warning: could not get file information for foo/bar.mo just mean:
FILE foo/bar.mo is included in package foobar-12.01-2 BUT pacman can't find it during upgrading proccess.
tl;dr:
IF You using bleachbit for removing not needed language files, then this will show up as warning.
quite commented on 2016-02-01 13:49
Getting this warning on installation:
(1/1) checking available disk space [#####################################################] 100%
warning: could not get file information for usr/share/locale/fr/LC_MESSAGES/downgrade.mo
warning: could not get file information for usr/share/locale/lt/LC_MESSAGES/downgrade.mo
warning: could not get file information for usr/share/locale/nb/LC_MESSAGES/downgrade.mo
warning: could not get file information for usr/share/locale/nn/LC_MESSAGES/downgrade.mo
warning: could not get file information for usr/share/locale/pt_BR/LC_MESSAGES/downgrade.mo
warning: could not get file information for usr/share/locale/zh_CN/LC_MESSAGES/downgrade.mo
:: Processing package changes...
brisbin33 commented on 2014-09-17 18:57
Seems reasonable. I'll put this on my list of TODOs.
If you're feeling particularly generous, opening such a change as a PR on GitHub would be wonderful :)
TrialnError commented on 2014-09-17 18:33
In the "AUR-Wikipage"[0] and "Arch Packaging Standards"[1] they describe what a tarball should contain.
And there were on AUR-General ML some topics on that (over the years)[2][3][4] (I point to posts, where they try to describe the term binary in case of interpreted languages).
And since it's more or less the whole project in there I suppose it's too much.
What would it mean for your PKGBuild? Just minor changes:
https://gist.github.com/Narrat/b7dd7fd0658e6e13f208#file-downgrade-pkgbuild
One minor notice to your makefile.
Instead of the "sed'ing + makepkg --geninteg" you could use "updpkgsums" (comes with pacman) and is doing the same.
______
[0] https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/AUR#Sharing_and_maintaining_packages
[1] https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_packaging_standards
[2] https://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2010-December/012342.html
[3] https://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2012-December/021380.html
[4] https://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2012-December/021290.html
_____
Edit: gist-url not working
TrialnError commented on 2014-09-17 18:23
In the "AUR-Wikipage"[0] and "Arch Packaging Standards"[1] they describe what a tarball should contain.
And there were on AUR-General ML some topics on that (over the years)[2][3][4] (I point to posts, where they try to describe the term binary in case of interpreted languages).
And since it's more or less the whole project in there I suppose it's too much.
What would it mean for your PKGBuild? Just minor changes:
https://gist.github.com/Narrat/b7dd7fd0658e6e13f208
One minor notice to your makefile.
Instead of the "sed'ing + makepkg --geninteg" you could use "updpkgsums" (comes with pacman) and is doing the same.
______
[0] https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/AUR#Sharing_and_maintaining_packages
[1] https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_packaging_standards
[2] https://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2010-December/012342.html
[3] https://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2012-December/021380.html
[4] https://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2012-December/021290.html
brisbin33 commented on 2014-09-17 15:27
TrialnError,
I had not heard that discussion or that it's a best practice to not include sources in the taurball anymore. Do you have a link?
It's easy enough to change things to work the other way if there's a compelling reason to do so.
As a sidenote - tagging releases in a VCS and what does or does not go into the taurball are orthogonal in my mind; I'll always tag releases in git regardless of how I'm packaging things.
TrialnError commented on 2014-09-17 09:20
I'm just wondering
You have a git-repo with tagged releases, still you put everything into the tarball, which should be avoided as far as I know (altough there were enough discussions in case of: "Oh, it's just bash-scripts, so that should be ok").
brisbin33 commented on 2014-06-17 14:38
I don't follow. Root permissions are required to install packages. Downgrade escalates for only this step via sudo or su.
What are you expecting?
barton commented on 2014-06-17 08:12
Seems to run with root permissions from my user account. Anyone else see that?