Search Criteria
Package Details: gnome-shell-extension-impatience-git 0.5.1.r0.g8540b71-1
Package Actions
| Git Clone URL: | https://aur.archlinux.org/gnome-shell-extension-impatience-git.git (read-only, click to copy) |
|---|---|
| Package Base: | gnome-shell-extension-impatience-git |
| Description: | speed up gnome-shell animations |
| Upstream URL: | https://github.com/timbertson/gnome-shell-impatience |
| Licenses: | GPL3 |
| Conflicts: | gnome-shell-extension-impatience |
| Provides: | gnome-shell-extension-impatience |
| Submitter: | mschu |
| Maintainer: | mschu |
| Last Packager: | mschu |
| Votes: | 9 |
| Popularity: | 0.000000 |
| First Submitted: | 2015-08-09 13:25 (UTC) |
| Last Updated: | 2024-04-15 08:42 (UTC) |
Dependencies (2)
- gnome-shell (gnome-shell-mobile-gitAUR, gnome-shell-beta-performanceAUR, gnome-shell-beta-performanceAUR, gnome-shell-beta-performanceAUR, gnome-shell-gitAUR, gnome-shell-performance-unstableAUR, gnome-shell-performance-unstableAUR, gnome-shell-performance-unstableAUR, gnome-shell-mobileAUR, gnome-shell-performanceAUR, gnome-shell-multiseatAUR, gnome-shell-multiseat-docsAUR)
- git (git-gitAUR, git-glAUR) (make)
Latest Comments
1 2 Next › Last »
pschichtel commented on 2024-04-13 08:56 (UTC)
@smigtech that's not the case anymore with 0.5.1
smigtech commented on 2024-03-25 11:46 (UTC)
Current upstream doesn't support Gnome 46
alexheretic commented on 2023-11-05 12:01 (UTC)
The prepare() patching can be removed now #33/gnome-45 support has merged.
mschu commented on 2022-11-01 12:00 (UTC)
I removed the version restriction on the live ebuild
pschichtel commented on 2022-11-01 11:47 (UTC)
we have the same situation with gnome 43 now. Upstream supports it, but this package doesn't.
alexheretic commented on 2022-04-07 12:34 (UTC)
Current upstream git does support gnome 42, whereas this pkgbuild explicitly doesn't. It's perhaps better to remove version requirements for gnome-shell in this pkgbuild unless that's going to be very actively maintained.
francoism90 commented on 2021-11-28 12:06 (UTC)
Why aren't you using
makefor this? It seems it will be missing schemes when doing the cp method?kal commented on 2016-10-15 03:06 (UTC)
kal commented on 2016-10-15 03:01 (UTC)
toXel commented on 2016-10-14 23:32 (UTC)
1 2 Next › Last »