Arch Linux User Repository

@gogoprog Thanks for the notice! Unfortunately with 0.99.5 upstream is releasing bug fixes without changing the version. I have updated the checksum in 0.99.5-4.

It looks like you first flagged the package as out-of-date but then removed the flag and posted the comment. In the future, if the checksum changes on this package, please use the "flag out-of-date" functionality to keep comments clean.

I was trying to run this on Wayland today, but unfortunately I only get this error:

libEGL warning: pci id for fd 33: 10de:2803, driver (null)

pci id for fd 34: 10de:2803, driver (null)
00b4:fixme:wineusb:query_id Unhandled ID query type 0x5.
00b4:fixme:wineusb:query_id Unhandled ID query type 0x5.
00b4:fixme:wineusb:query_id Unhandled ID query type 0x5.
00b4:fixme:wineusb:query_id Unhandled ID query type 0x5.
00b4:fixme:wineusb:query_id Unhandled ID query type 0x5.
00b4:fixme:wineusb:query_id Unhandled ID query type 0x5.
pci id for fd 63: 10de:2803, driver (null)
pci id for fd 61: 10de:2803, driver (null)
libEGL warning: pci id for fd 28: 10de:2803, driver (null)

pci id for fd 29: 10de:2803, driver (null)
pci id for fd 68: 10de:2803, driver (null)
pci id for fd 66: 10de:2803, driver (null)
[Log: 7-56] PNG read : w 512 : h 256 : samples 3 : alpha 1 : bits 8 : map 0 : bgr 0 : a1 0
[Error] no pixelFormat
Shader:
(null)
Shader:
(null)
Program:
(null)
Program:

Program:

Program:

0024:err:seh:NtRaiseException Unhandled exception code c0000409 flags 1 addr 0x14023a78d

Don't plan to actively maintain the package at this time, so disowning it wrt. the out-of-date flag and orphan request. Happy to hear it's being used, hopefully someone more active can pick it up!

Decided to update this package to the current "beta" version 0.99.7.1, since the non-beta download links have been removed from the upstream homepage (https://github.com/ephtracy/ephtracy.github.io/commit/ba3e02bdac8c2240e33e86ae6c10ccb573a1cb23).

@u32i64 Thank you so much for the extensive information.

As for interest in having the newest update, it does appeal, and that's the main reason why I asked in the first place.

I don't know how many people use MagicaVoxel on Arch, from the AUR, but since you're already the maintainer of this package, if you would want to create a -beta one, we could certainly benefit from it.

But I'm not sure what would be the best practice, and I don't know why 0.99.7.0 is considered "beta" by ephtracy, given the long hiatus in MagicaVoxel's development.

More opinions would be welcomed.

@damax Yes, the 0.99.7(.0) version should be pretty straightforward to install using this PKGBUILD, you should just need to change:

• _pkgver_tag to 0.99.7;
• _pkgver_suffix to .0;
• _pkgver_date to 20220125 (as of this comment this is the date that the build was last updated);
• the first item in sha512sums to the checksum of the MagicaVoxel-0.99.7.0-win64.zip file at https://github.com/ephtracy/ephtracy.github.io/releases/tag/0.99.7 (or SKIP).

If you want to install it side-by-side with the current version, you may need to change the name of the package, some filenames, and edit the magicavoxel script accordingly (app_folder etc.), for it to be a fully separate installation.

On a related note, do you (or anyone else using this package) think it would make sense for me to just update this package to 0.99.7(.0)? It's true that it's considered "beta" by upstream, but given that there have not been any newer versions in a long time it might make sense to consider it a "stable enough" version in the context of this AUR package.

Otherwise, would it perhaps make sense to create a separate package with a -beta suffix that would contain such beta versions?

If one wanted to package the beta version (with new features and changes), would the build process potentially be the same?

This works great! Thanks :)

Please, could you update the checksum for the files or change it to "skip"?

Looks like upstream modified magicavoxel-0.99.6.4.r20210908.zip again; another checksum issue like last time. Mind releasing another pkgrel? :)

(Or perhaps just setting the checksum for that file to SKIP?)

@gogoprog Thanks for the notice! Unfortunately with 0.99.5 upstream is releasing bug fixes without changing the version. I have updated the checksum in 0.99.5-4.

It looks like you first flagged the package as out-of-date but then removed the flag and posted the comment. In the future, if the checksum changes on this package, please use the "flag out-of-date" functionality to keep comments clean.