Package Details: file-roller2-nn 2.32.2-6

Git Clone URL: (read-only)
Package Base: file-roller2-nn
Description: Archive manipulator for GNOME without nautilus dependency. (no nautilus)
Upstream URL:
Licenses: GPL
Conflicts: file-roller, nautilus
Provides: file-roller
Submitter: None
Maintainer: bidulock
Last Packager: bidulock
Votes: 37
Popularity: 0.000102
First Submitted: 2011-10-11 23:13
Last Updated: 2016-05-30 06:06

Dependencies (13)

Required by (5)

Sources (2)

Latest Comments

scar commented on 2017-12-09 17:00

Files don't show up in password protected rar files. Checked with other tools, they work. (unrar cli, file-roller).

malabarth commented on 2015-08-11 08:45

Thanks a lot!

bidulock commented on 2015-06-07 09:20

namcap says there is a missing dependency on dconf

Joel commented on 2014-06-20 17:04

Installation ok, thanks for the gtk2+ portability :)

Anonymous comment on 2014-04-16 20:09

Due to the GTK3 3.12 changes, this package was appealing for use with Xfce. However rar archives were showing as being empty. FYI, the engrampa-thunar AUR package is a working alternative.

Anonymous comment on 2014-04-16 20:06

This package sounded appealing for use on Xfce, but when I tried it my rar archives were showing as being empty. The AUR package [url=]engrampa-thunar[/url] is a working alternative.

korrode commented on 2013-12-29 17:13

Recently while looking to setup a pure GTK2 Xfce environment on my laptop, I found this package to be the most logical choice for the purpose. (It doesn't require GTK3 and still seems to work perfectly with thunar-archive-plugin, and of course Nautilus integration was not required.)

Thanks. :)

BrainwreckedTech commented on 2013-03-03 02:16

IRT WonderWoofy: The PKGBUILD for file-roller2 lists nautilus as a makedepend. The web page only lists run-time dependencies.

Anonymous comment on 2012-09-10 16:08

It doesn't seem like they do. I'll have to check a bit more thoroughly when I get home.

WonderWoofy commented on 2012-09-10 15:51

So the other file-roller2 package in the AUR has the same dependencies as this package now. So do they differ at all? I understand that the other used to require nautilus, but it does not appear that this is so anymore.

Anonymous comment on 2012-07-23 21:56

I've updated it. I'm not even sure what that file is for, but since the source code doesn't change and File Roller still works fine, I'll bundle it as a static resource.

mutterschiff commented on 2012-07-23 19:55

maybe you should use a version of that is not changing all the time, bzw disable md5-check for this file (don't know if this is possible for a single file)
by the way the new md5sum is 8d419450010031aa29a07505d83bab78

Anonymous comment on 2012-07-01 19:45


Anonymous comment on 2012-07-01 12:02

==> Validating source files with md5sums...
file-roller-2.32.2.tar.bz2 ... Passed ... FAILED
==> ERROR: One or more files did not pass the validity check!
==> ERROR: Makepkg was unable to build file-roller2-nn.
==> Restart building file-roller2-nn ? [y/N]

mutterschiff commented on 2012-06-24 15:57

new md5sum again: 81f24b0e35db178c8c8d4b86d3398b58

Anonymous comment on 2012-05-09 14:58

Sorry, I forgot to upload the updated package. Fixed.

mutterschiff commented on 2012-05-09 13:08

new md5sum for is 060019561a3c524de3f20dc65932ce12

orlfman commented on 2012-05-07 22:21

Just went to install this today and recieved this message:

-> Found file-roller-2.32.2.tar.bz2
-> Found
==> Validating source files with md5sums...
file-roller-2.32.2.tar.bz2 ... Passed ... FAILED
==> ERROR: One or more files did not pass the validity check!
==> ERROR: Makepkg was unable to build file-roller2-nn.

Anonymous comment on 2012-04-05 07:22

This is the GTK2 version of File Roller, so I can't really upgrade it any more. This one works fine for me ;)

skydrome commented on 2012-04-05 03:03

it seems v3.4 is out

Anonymous comment on 2012-04-05 02:02

This package was recently flagged out of date. It compiles fine for me and I use it daily on a up-to-date Arch system.

Is there a problem with the package?

Anonymous comment on 2011-10-12 20:02

@graysky: No problem.

graysky commented on 2011-10-12 00:02

Nice, thanks for the package.