Package Details: localepurge 0.7.3.4-2

Git Clone URL: https://aur.archlinux.org/localepurge.git (read-only)
Package Base: localepurge
Description: Script to remove disk space wasted for unneeded localizations.
Upstream URL: http://packages.debian.org/source/sid/localepurge
Licenses: GPL
Submitter: None
Maintainer: hcartiaux
Last Packager: hcartiaux
Votes: 241
Popularity: 3.782510
First Submitted: 2007-07-08 16:29
Last Updated: 2016-08-08 09:32

Dependencies (0)

Required by (0)

Sources (5)

Latest Comments

ArchangeGabriel commented on 2016-05-24 12:10

A good article on that: https://www.andreascarpino.it/posts/localepurge-the-arch-way.html

ArchangeGabriel commented on 2016-05-24 09:14

Nice, NoExtract is definitively the right way to do this. Switching to it right now (remember to do a localepurge before ;)).

symen commented on 2016-05-24 08:17

@meskarune
I switched to using NoExtract in pacman.conf, following someone's advice on the Arch BBS. For this use-case it is cleaner and the setup is documented on the ArchWiki:
https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Pacman#Skip_files_from_being_installed_to_system

meskarune commented on 2016-05-22 23:01

@symen maybe you can add your hook to the arch wiki so other people can make use of it?

ArchangeGabriel commented on 2016-03-27 20:09

I would love to see this feature in. The code to be reviewed is this one?
https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/collab-maint/localepurge.git/tree/usr/sbin/localepurge?id=1d18c4b710154b9188116d9d85779d1f613a77b5

Plus your patch, right?

hcartiaux commented on 2016-02-12 09:08

That's a good idea, but if there's a bug in localepurge, the hook could cause a "delayed disaster", difficult to diagnose and debug...

I agree to include the hook only if we take the time to review the full code of localepurge and my diff.

symen commented on 2016-02-12 02:29

A new feature (hooks) in pacman 5.0 (freshly released) would allow localepurge to run after each install/update containing locales.
I quickly wrote a hook file that seems to work fine (but may spit too much output): https://gist.github.com/simonbru/2373a968be3cf67b4ed6

Do you plan to bundle a similar hook with localepurge ? I think this would make localepurge much nicer to use, but I don't know if this should be bundled with localepurge or installed as an additional package.

kozaki commented on 2014-12-09 15:20

This makes a difference in disk's utilisation
Thanks a lot hcartiaux for adopting it!

hcartiaux commented on 2014-02-04 20:49

I had to recreate the patch localepurge.config.diff.
I've tested and it should be ok, you can read my diff here:
https://github.com/hcartiaux/archlinux-packages

hcartiaux commented on 2014-02-04 17:38

I add to recreate the patch file localepurge.config.diff.
I've tested and it should be ok, you can read my diff here:
https://github.com/hcartiaux/archlinux-packages

hcartiaux commented on 2013-10-30 12:06

I adopt (unexpectedly) this package because I use it on 5 archlinux systems and ~ 100 small debian servers ;)

fgr commented on 2013-05-31 17:41

@eworm and Fred:
Fixed, many thanks.

FredBezies commented on 2013-05-31 10:43

Just replace :

install -D -m755 ${srcdir}/${pkgname}/usr/sbin/localepurge ${pkgdir}/usr/sbin/localepurge

by

install -D -m755 ${srcdir}/${pkgname}/usr/sbin/localepurge ${pkgdir}/usr/bin/localepurge

And

install -D -m755 ${srcdir}/${pkgname}/debian/localepurge.config ${pkgdir}/usr/sbin/localepurge.config

by

install -D -m755 ${srcdir}/${pkgname}/debian/localepurge.config ${pkgdir}/usr/bin/localepurge.config

eworm commented on 2013-05-29 09:53

Please install scripts to /usr/bin (not /usr/sbin) to prepare for /usr move. Thanks a lot!

lee commented on 2012-11-10 01:02

Validity check not passed for all files except localepurge_0.6.3.tar.gz

eworm commented on 2011-11-17 12:41

It got even worse... Now everything but localepurge_0.6.2+nmu2.tar.gz fails the validity check.

eworm commented on 2011-11-16 15:25

localepurge.8.patch and locale.nopurge fail the validity check.

fgr commented on 2011-11-13 15:00

From localepurge(8):
"All locale directories containing a subdirectory named LC_MESSAGES which are either commented out or not even listed at all in /etc/locale.nopurge will be irreversibly deleted."

If some locale directory doesn't contain the LC_MESSAGES subdirectory, I think that issue is not related to the localepurge script. But it could be a patch to add :-)

fgr commented on 2011-11-13 09:14

From localepurge(8):
"All locale directories containing a subdirectory named LC_MESSAGES which are either commented out or not even listed at all in /etc/locale.nopurge will be irreversibly deleted."

I think that issue is not related to this script if a package doesn't contain the LC_MESSAGES subdirectory.

dlin commented on 2011-11-11 04:47

I found there are some other locale in gvim. How to remove them?

/usr/share/man/pl.ISO8859-2/*
/usr/share/man/ru.KOI8-R/*
/usr/share/man/it/*
/usr/share/man/fr.ISO8859-1/*

Yegorius commented on 2011-07-13 23:33

> pacman -Qo /usr/share/locale/currency/eur.desktop
/usr/share/locale/currency/eur.desktop is owned by kdebase-runtime 4.6.5-1
> pacman -Qo /usr/share/locale/l10n/de/entry.desktop
/usr/share/locale/l10n/de/entry.desktop is owned by kdebase-runtime 4.6.5-1
But I also have DONTBOTHERNEWLOCALE set in /etc/locale.nopurge, maybe this is the cause?

fgr commented on 2011-07-10 09:30

Do you know any PKGBUILD that copies '.mo' file in /usr/share/locale/{l10n,currency}?

Yegorius commented on 2011-06-29 13:48

Maybe taht's because KDE packagers in Arch save KDE specific locales in /usr/share/locale/{l10n,currency},
while other distros use another locations for this files.

fgr commented on 2011-06-18 09:25

It's strange that nobody haven't got any problem so far (given that it has been four years since it first submitted ;-)
Anyway, I can't update anything at this time.

Yegorius commented on 2011-06-18 01:25

if l10n directory is purged by localepurge, then KDE users can not set timezones, calendar and language preferences in KDE.

fgr commented on 2011-06-07 20:25

I'm using K3b (Italian localisation). So, I don't know what is the issue.

Yegorius commented on 2011-06-07 17:27

By default localepurge deletes all KDE locales and currency info. To avid this add "l10n" and "currency" to /etc/locale.nopurge
Like this:
C
en
en_GB
en_GB.UTF-8
l10n
currency
Should I report this upstream?

fgr commented on 2011-05-15 19:21

hmm, you are right! I use Emacs with pkgbuild-mode -- surely I didn't do all the right steps. Perhaps, there was some old source file in my $ABSROOT that was in conflict with the directory contains my localepurge PKGBUILD. Sorry. Fixed.

Anonymous comment on 2011-05-15 18:40

I concur with FredBezies and enzolatina! I copied the patch straight away and used two different md5sum programs and both came out as "5b926906daddf0269ba70d8d1451876c" just to be sure.

FredBezies commented on 2011-05-15 17:26

Here is what makepkg -g gave me :

md5sums=('6a1e13f32cd5f7ca842db9acdf1b9cb4'
'57a5be0f64e6873807d3664b468cb001'
'5b926906daddf0269ba70d8d1451876c'
'24340f0218d225d2510eee94a77ad676'
'5ab92139004dcd282d6ee82e39ba0ffb')

Anonymous comment on 2011-05-15 16:31

same here, localepurge.8.patch failed...
this is the right md5sum: 5b926906daddf0269ba70d8d1451876c

fgr commented on 2011-05-15 13:19

@harryNID: it's odd, because I've just done a diff and the md5sums seems OK.
The md5sums are:
md5sums=('6a1e13f32cd5f7ca842db9acdf1b9cb4' '57a5be0f64e6873807d3664b468cb001'\
'9de6d8f46e4d2d1be46d3781ab8764f5' '24340f0218d225d2510eee94a77ad676'\
'5ab92139004dcd282d6ee82e39ba0ffb')

Anonymous comment on 2011-05-15 11:31

@fgr - Could you please check the md5sums in the PKGBUILD. I'm getting a "One or more files did not pass the validity check!" on "localepurge.8.patch ... FAILED".

Thanks

fgr commented on 2011-05-15 10:01

There are no updates for localepurge script, but I've revised localepurge man page and the PKGBUILD (replaced bash '[[' with sh '[').

fgr commented on 2011-05-15 09:57

There's no updates for localepurge script, but I've revised localepurge man page and the PKGBUILD (replace bash '[[' with sh '[').

fgr commented on 2010-12-18 12:41

I've just moved my patches to another host, renamed the ones from '*.diff' to '*.patch' and changed my email address in the localepurge.8.patch file.

schivmeister commented on 2010-11-14 10:53

Ahh OK. Anyway I wanted to bring this to [community], but I've decided it's best left here and under your care. So keep up the work with this :)

fgr commented on 2010-10-23 13:55

Updated PKGBUILD to apply the hint by schivmeister. Note: I'm going to update pkgrel (starting from 1) since a new upstream version will be released.

fgr commented on 2010-10-23 13:55

Updated PKGBUILD to apply the hint by schivmeister. Note: I'm going to update pkgrel (starting from 1) since a new upstream version will be is released.

fgr commented on 2010-10-23 13:52

Updated PKGBUILD to apply the hint by schivmeister. Note: I'm going to update pkgrel (starting from 1) since a new upstrem version is released.

fgr commented on 2010-10-16 09:29

Hi schivmeister, sorry for the delay in replying.

About first point: I haven't decided to release a fork of the localepurge original version. However, as you rightly say later in your comment, the GPL doesn't grant me permission to redistribute a work with another license.

About second point: probably, I'll follow your hints. Thanks.

> One final note is that I don't know whether your licensing is valid, since you are deriving GPL work. GPL dictates copyleft for derived works. The Gentoo adaptation of localepurge is also GPL. Why go through the trouble of changing the license (to an invalid one) when all you're doing is patching the program for redistribution?

IMO, my license is like CPL <http://www.cypherspace.org/CPL/> or WTFPL <http://sam.zoy.org/wtfpl/>. Obviously, only my code is released with my custom license (that is for my patches). Just a note about my license: I think the GPL is not truly free. Moreover, it doesn't reject intellectual property. I don't give a damn about some silly laws. My license hasn't approved by any institutions or state laws. It's just for this that, IMO, one is very permissive. And people aren't able to use the law to enforce the rights given by the license. But this is philosophy and off topic here.

schivmeister commented on 2010-10-12 16:56

Hello

One thing: the copyright notes on the debian page tells me this is GPL software. Why is the license here custom?

edit: nevermind..i see this is your own patched tarball it's downloading.

edit2: you can go 2 ways..

1) You should just pre-patch the files and release the tarball. In this case you would be "upstream". So the PKGBUILD should only need to move files around. As you would be deriving an existing work, you are free to bump or add revision numbers. A "localepurge-arch-0.6.2_$customrel" looks good to me and the underscore is friendly with our package management (ie. $pkgver).

OR

2) Release only your patches. The PKGBUILD should download the deb src or whatever it is that gives you the original files. It will also download your patches, and the steps would be pretty much the same as they are now. If your patches change, there will be pkgrel updates only.

One final note is that I don't know whether your licensing is valid, since you are deriving GPL work. GPL dictates copyleft for derived works. The Gentoo adaptation of localepurge is also GPL. Why go through the trouble of changing the license (to an invalid one) when all you're doing is patching the program for redistribution?

schivmeister commented on 2010-10-12 15:11

Hello

One thing: the copyright notes on the debian page tells me this is GPL software. Why is the license here custom?

edit: nevermind..i see this is your own patched tarball it's downloading.

schivmeister commented on 2010-10-12 15:11

Hello

One thing: the copyright notes on the debian page tells me this is GPL software. Why is the license here custom?

edit: nevermind..i see this is your own patched tarball it's downloading.

schivmeister commented on 2010-10-12 15:05

Hello

One thing: the copyright notes on the debian page tells me this is GPL software. Why is the license here custom?

fgr commented on 2010-09-15 14:24

> why don't you simply make and host an Arch-release of this package?
> It is totally annoying to check the diffs everytime this package updated!

it could be a good hint...

> And once again, the pkgrel describes the Arch _package_ release number, not the version of the updated sources!

oh yes, I think it must be so, because the upstream author doesn't release any package-0.0.0"-0"...

> If you don't make it right, please disown this package.

You should better calm down... Just propose your hint at aur-general mailing list, then mail me (or leave a comment on this page) what the community says on the issue. Not just what you like.

fgr commented on 2010-09-15 14:23

> why don't you simply make and host an Arch-release of this package?
> It is totally annoying to check the diffs everytime this package updated!

it could be a good hint...

> And once again, the pkgrel describes the Arch _package_ release number, not the version of the updated sources!

oh yes, I think it must be so, because the upstream author doesn't release any package-0.0.0"-0"...

> If you don't make it right, please disown this package.

You should better calm down... Just propose your hint at aur-general mailing list, then mail me (or leave a comment on this page) what the community say on the issue. Not just what you like.

fgr commented on 2010-09-15 10:27

> why don't you simply make and host an Arch-release of this package?
> It is totally annoying to check the diffs everytime this package updated!

it could be a good hint...

> And once again, the pkgrel describes the Arch _package_ release number, not the version of the updated sources!

oh yes, I think it must be so, because the upstream author doesn't release any package-0.0.0"-0"...

> If you don't make it right, please disown this package.

You should better calm down... Some time ago, I propose to make something similar, but somebody said me didn't make what you're saying. Just propose your hint at aur-general mailing list, then mail me (or leave a comment on this page) what *all members* decided on the issue.

donvla commented on 2010-09-14 13:17

I brought this up before, but why don't you simply make and host an Arch-release of this package?
It is totally annoying to check the diffs everytime this package updated!
And once again, the pkgrel describes the Arch _package_ release number, not the version of the updated sources!
If you don't make it right, please disown this package.

donvla commented on 2010-09-14 13:03

"==> Validating source files with md5sums...
localepurge-arch-0.6.2.tar.gz ... FAILED
==> ERROR: One or more files did not pass the validity check!"

fgr commented on 2010-09-04 16:08

updated README.txt; fixed a typo in the man page.

fgr commented on 2010-09-04 16:07

updated README.txt; fix a typo in the man page.

fgr commented on 2010-08-23 20:00

@Stebalien
fixed, thank you.

fgr commented on 2010-08-23 17:34

@Stebalien: I'll fix it. Thanks. For now just type 'y' to the question "Reversed (or previously applied) patch detected! Assume -R? [n]".

Stebalien commented on 2010-08-23 17:10

The patches have already been applied (your PKGBUILD is trying to repatch them).

fgr commented on 2010-08-23 17:04

I've add "README.txt" file, that is a small note about the license for diff files.

@shinythings: for now I don't apply your hint because the author of the package don't do it. I think the author follows this software naming practice: http://tldp.org/HOWTO/Software-Release-Practice-HOWTO/naming.html#AEN185

Anonymous comment on 2010-05-28 09:30

Ah ok. Thanks for the info, I'll have a look.

It might be good to reflect the change in the source package (0.6.2.arch1, 0.6.2.arch2 or something) rather than just bumping the package rel. As it stands old PKGBUILDs point at a "localepurge-arch-0.6.2" that doesn't exist anymore because it's changed without it's name changing.

fgr commented on 2010-05-28 09:21

You can see the reason for that by taking a look at "localepurge.config.diff" file.
If I do a new rebuild that means there's some reason. :-)
For example: in the past I've changed the license for my patch scripts (2-clause BSD license -> ISC -> WTFPL -> unlicense.org; now I've written my license).

Anonymous comment on 2010-05-28 07:04

What is the reason for the latest rebuild? The only difference seems to be the md5sum, but the source package has the same number. Has the source changed somehow?