Package Details: goldendict-git 1:1.5.0rc2.r521.g99982a1c-2

Git Clone URL: https://aur.archlinux.org/goldendict-git.git (read-only, click to copy)
Package Base: goldendict-git
Description: Feature-rich dictionary lookup program supporting multiple dictionary formats
Upstream URL: https://github.com/goldendict/goldendict
Licenses: GPL3
Conflicts: goldendict
Provides: goldendict
Submitter: Infy
Maintainer: aksr
Last Packager: MarsSeed
Votes: 93
Popularity: 0.009802
First Submitted: 2009-11-13 13:32 (UTC)
Last Updated: 2022-06-08 02:16 (UTC)

Latest Comments

« First ‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 .. 15 Next › Last »

PolarianDev commented on 2023-03-02 19:59 (UTC)

Wait... why is there duplicates of the same executable?

Normally this is an issue when you have -git and then the release variant, but this is not the case here.

This is a mess...

eclairevoyant commented on 2023-03-02 19:58 (UTC) (edited on 2023-03-02 19:59 (UTC) by eclairevoyant)

Because it's provided by every other goldendict-* packages, again please read the wiki. We are not going to write packages by listing out every possible conflicting package. The whole point of having provides is that it can act as a substitute dependency as well as a target to conflict against.

PolarianDev commented on 2023-03-02 12:14 (UTC)

I am aware what both the keywords mean, my point was why conflict a package which does not exist?

eclairevoyant commented on 2023-03-02 00:38 (UTC) (edited on 2023-03-02 00:39 (UTC) by eclairevoyant)

@PolarianDev you should probably review the wiki and check what conflicts and provides mean.

Anyway if you want to make a versioned release package (i.e. plain goldendict)... no one is stopping you?

PolarianDev commented on 2023-03-01 20:14 (UTC)

The goldendict namespace seems completely messed up, why is there no simple "goldendict" aur package?

I get there is -git but what if you dont want -git?

eclairevoyant commented on 2023-03-01 14:36 (UTC)

@PolarianDev There are multiple goldendict-* packages, and as per AUR packaging guidelines, we should always provide/conflict with the base package rather than specifying individual packages to conflict with. So it doesn't matter if goldendict exists or not.

aksr commented on 2023-03-01 14:28 (UTC)

@PolarianDev: There was goldendict package until qt5-webkit wasn't deprecated.

PolarianDev commented on 2023-03-01 12:32 (UTC)

Why is there a conflict set to goldendict when no such package exists?

Rhinoceros commented on 2023-01-30 11:48 (UTC)

@eclairevoyant yes, I also couldn't see anything wrong. The maintainer should remove the flag.

eclairevoyant commented on 2023-01-30 11:23 (UTC)

@rhinoceros There's no reason this should be flagged out of date, the package builds fine in a clean chroot and appears to run fine as well. If there's an issue with the package then someone should comment on it.

« First ‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 .. 15 Next › Last »