Search Criteria
Package Details: mepo 1.2.0-2
Package Actions
Git Clone URL: | https://aur.archlinux.org/mepo.git (read-only, click to copy) |
---|---|
Package Base: | mepo |
Description: | Fast, simple, and hackable OSM map viewer for Linux |
Upstream URL: | https://git.sr.ht/~mil/mepo |
Licenses: | GPL3 |
Submitter: | renehsz |
Maintainer: | hamblingreen |
Last Packager: | hamblingreen |
Votes: | 9 |
Popularity: | 1.35 |
First Submitted: | 2021-11-15 10:23 (UTC) |
Last Updated: | 2023-08-17 17:04 (UTC) |
Dependencies (13)
- curl (curl-git, curl-quiche-git, curl-http3-ngtcp2)
- findutils (findutils-selinux, findutils-git, busybox-coreutils)
- geoclue (geoclue_fake-git)
- jq (jq-git)
- ncurses (ncurses-git)
- sdl2_gfx
- sdl2_image
- sdl2_ttf
- xorg-xwininfo
- zenity (zenity-git, zenity-gtk2, qarma-git, zenity-gtk4-git)
- sdl2 (sdl2-git) (make)
- zig (zig-static, zig-git, zigup-bin, zig-bin, zig-0.10-bin, zig-dev-bin, zvm) (make)
- zig (zig-static, zig-git, zigup-bin, zig-bin, zig-0.10-bin, zig-dev-bin, zvm) (check)
Latest Comments
1 2 3 4 Next › Last »
hamblingreen commented on 2023-09-01 05:20 (UTC)
thanks everyone for confirming that mepo does indeed compile against the Zig 0.11.0 version in the main arch repos. i'm also curious as to why some languages tend to lag behind in packaging on the main arch repos, but i'm glad everything is working now :)
let me know if you encounter any other issues
m040601 commented on 2023-09-01 01:54 (UTC)
Can also confirm it is compiling and working now again
QuietApe commented on 2023-08-29 20:55 (UTC)
Thanks for the info, Zig has been updated to 0.11.0 in the main arch repos, compilation runs now without trouble :)
m040601 commented on 2023-08-27 22:09 (UTC) (edited on 2023-08-27 22:20 (UTC) by m040601)
I'm also failing to install the latest version with the error,
To anyone who might be knowlageble in these "zig things"
I'm somehow curious about this. Why are some languages so more "troublesome" than others, with regards to packaging for Arch ?
Why is this "zig" Arch official package always "late" ? Is it because it is difficult to maintain/build or package ? Does it mess/interfere with other things in Arch ? Is the language "zig" itself that makes things not so easy to compile and package things ? It reminds me of Pandoc and Haskell. Always a big beast to compile. At least compared to Go which makes it easy peasy to compile and package Go programs for Arch.
hamblingreen commented on 2023-08-26 15:17 (UTC)
QuietApe: the latest mepo version is based on Zig 0.11.0, which is not available in the main arch repos for the time being. currently the workaround is to install zig-bin from the AUR, which is up to date. this will be fixed when Zig 0.11.0 is available in the main arch repos. The zig-bin package doesn't however satisfy the dependency check if it were to say zig>=0.11.0, so the dependency in the PKGBUILD still just says zig. i tried building on 0.10.1 and got the same error you did, so i assume this is the issue.
QuietApe commented on 2023-08-26 13:08 (UTC) (edited on 2023-08-26 13:14 (UTC) by QuietApe)
I tried to compile mepo but I end up with this error with
makepkg
:I guess the problem come from zig, but I don't get how to correct it ?
hamblingreen commented on 2023-08-17 17:09 (UTC)
midv: The zig dependency version numbers have been temporarily removed, the build flag updated, and pkgrel bumped. I tested the updated pkgbuild on my system and it works as expected. Thanks for the heads up!
midv commented on 2023-08-17 08:36 (UTC)
I managed to install 1.2.0 but it took a while to get there. I had to install zig-bin from AUR to satisfy the
zig>=0.11
dependency. Then I had to change two things in PKGBUILD:I had to temporarily remove the numbers because somehow zig-bin 0.11 couldn't satisfy version constraints in makepkg.
hamblingreen commented on 2023-04-08 21:31 (UTC)
sayo: that would check out, considering i pushed a new pkgrel with updated checksums (i always run updpkgsums before pushing) on mar 22, then they changed again on april 1st. brycehenley reported the checksums changing back on the 3rd, so they shouldn't change now. i've validated this by building using the current pkgbuild and it passes the latest pushed checksums. a temporary fix would be to just skip the integrity check if this issue persists, but this wouldn't be ideal.
tl;dr the checksums shouldn't change again until the next package release
sayo commented on 2023-04-08 14:48 (UTC)
Regarding the checksum validation failures, it may be related to an issue SourceHut had with archive checksums between March 22nd and April 1st:
https://lists.sr.ht/~sircmpwn/sr.ht-announce/%3CCRM6OWV7GTWL.27CDG91BBXGW%40taiga%3E
1 2 3 4 Next › Last »