Arch Linux User Repository

If you see this error:

==> Validating source files with sha256sums...
    Lark-linux_x64-{current version}.deb ... NOT FOUND

please flag the package as out-of-date, as that it is what it means.

Please ignore the mv: cannot stat '${srcdir}/package_info?platform=1': No such file or directory error. This is currently expected.

AFAIK a tiny bit of scraping is required to extract the download link. Hence an unorthodox downloading method, which to the best of my knowledge requires an equally unorthodox error message.

When upgrading from 7.42.17 or lower, please remove /usr/share/icons/hicolor/*x*/apps/bytedance-lark.png just this once. Previous versions of the larksuite-bin AUR package shipped those icons improperly, untracked, and as a copy and I've revamped the package to conform more with Arch package guidelines with the latest version bump.

给用户过期的条款可能会有法律问题。更应该探索怎么从那个用户条款网站，只提取条款的内容，而不包括其他的各种HTML鸡手鸭脚。

要不考虑把 License 的 HASH 校验改为 “skip”，最近 Larksuite 更新用户协议较频繁，若用户协议持续更新很长一段时间也不是一个办法。

I accidentally pushed the fix directly to the master branch. I tested the script to fix the hash issue I encountered, but I was only able to test it via VPN in JP, SG, and TW. I will push a new fix ASAP if anyone has trouble installing it.

It's just whatever file you get. As long as <meta name='hera-project-version' content=" specifies a later version, you should specify the new checksum based on it.

Could you please provide the copy of the license that passed validation? I would love to contribute to this AUR package, but I need the correct file to generate the same hash listed in the PKGBUILD.

Thank you so much!

Due to I do not use linux as my major work device recently, I just disown-ed this package, so aliu should be the sole maintainer now.

Huge thanks to aliu's effort!

Just let me know / DM / email me if there would be any thing I could help. Happy hacking!

If you see this error:

==> Validating source files with sha256sums...
    Lark-linux_x64-{current version}.deb ... NOT FOUND

please flag the package as out-of-date, as that it is what it means.

Please ignore the mv: cannot stat '${srcdir}/package_info?platform=1': No such file or directory error. This is currently expected.

AFAIK a tiny bit of scraping is required to extract the download link. Hence an unorthodox downloading method, which to the best of my knowledge requires an equally unorthodox error message.

Shipping a static file would cause legal issues IANAL. An outdated license would have different terms from the actual license.

I was working on a compromise solution of automatically extracting the license text from the website a few months ago, but other things are currently in the way. It should not be too difficult to manually change the checksum after you've verified that the bad checksum persists upon removing the cached file and redownloading, but please feel free to flag this package as out-of-date if a checksum does not match.

I would say I would be happy to add anyone as a co-maintainer, but I just realized that I do not actually possess the ability to do so as I am a co-maintainer myself. That does make me consider whether it would be advisable to just remove the license entirely in the meantime.

(Also, note that the last problem was not actually with the license checksum but an outdated .deb version.

Anyways, should work now.)

This AUR package consistently fails to validate the license. Would it be possible to ship a static file instead of downloading the HTML version, or to fix the validation issue?

I’ve attached my license HTML file here: https://gist.github.com/miaulightouch/5c36a8e215f631a96d0a0f31ea49ba23