Package Details: mat2 0.9.0-1

Git Clone URL: (read-only)
Package Base: mat2
Description: Metadata anonymisation toolkit
Upstream URL:
Licenses: GPL3
Submitter: Francois_B
Maintainer: Francois_B
Last Packager: Francois_B
Votes: 7
Popularity: 0.695539
First Submitted: 2018-08-18 13:57
Last Updated: 2019-05-18 16:54

Latest Comments

1 2 Next › Last »

insatiable_kin commented on 2019-05-26 18:13

thanks to the anonymous contributor who pointed me to the required key. here's how to fetch the key for the sake of documentation:

gpg --keyserver --recv-key AC28F00D0351B960

insatiable_kin commented on 2019-05-26 18:08

sorry but to me a package that requires importing a key but does not mention which one and where to get it is a broken package as there is no way to build it.

egrupled commented on 2019-05-20 14:19

@insatiable_kin You have to import the key first, the package works good

insatiable_kin commented on 2019-05-18 08:49

this package is broken, does not build.

==> Validating source files with sha256sums...

mat2 ... Skipped

==> Verifying source file signatures with gpg...

mat2 git repo ... FAILED (unknown public key 04D041E8171901CC)

==> ERROR: One or more PGP signatures could not be verified!

==> ERROR: Makepkg was unable to build mat2.

Francois_B commented on 2019-03-23 07:28

I believe you need to import the key first.

maderios commented on 2019-03-22 08:18

Problem: makepkg -sicC FAILED (unknown public key 04D041E8171901CC)

egrupled commented on 2019-03-08 10:02


Everything is great now, thank you.

Francois_B commented on 2019-03-08 06:00

Comment section works. Please stop flagging!

egrupled commented on 2019-03-07 13:59


I wouldn't ever do this if you cared to answer for public message that I left here in comments couple months ago. You totally ignored that and kept bumping versions of flawed package.

After I flagged it for the first time, you partially copied my changes without testing which resulted in broken build. After second time you made a partial copy again which result in broken build in clean chroot (and for everyone who doesn't have correct deps already installed) which again proves you never tested it there, otherwise you wouldn't have to ask me why those deps are needed. How do you expect users to trust you if you don't keep such basic maintainer responsibilities?

Also you wouldn't have to trust me at all because upstream readme file already lists needed dependencies:

You added most of them in only after I flagged this for the first time even as all of them was included in my comment months ago. You still missed 'gir1.2-gdkpixbuf-2.0' which translates to gdk-pixbuf2' in Arch.

How do you explain that you ignored officially listed upstream dependencies for months until I flagged this package? (which shouldn't happen but you left me no other choice). How you can ask me to report the problem for upstream when you never read things listed there i the first place?

For the reference, here's the full list of dependencies needed for Arch which upstream lists in their CI script ('mailcap' is included there): . That lists 100% matches with one I provided in a comment below. EDIT: those were recently moved to but are still the same.

I made an effort to improve this PKGBUILD for highest quality because I wanted to help you as I did for dozens of other maintainers in AUR. I didn't expect that in return you will question me about basic facts without even trying to check anything yourself.

Francois_B commented on 2019-03-07 12:55

@egrupled. Please stop sending private messages without the possibility to reply to you in private (your email is hidden) and marking this package as out of date as it is up to date.

Out of date means that a new release as been pushed by upstream, not that something can be improved.

I'm also really sorry to do not trust your statement about missing packages as long as you do not prove you are right. Example: So far, mailcap is not indicated in the readme file upstream. If the problem is the readme file, please report the problem upstream.