Package Details: owlink-git 0.0.0-1

Git Clone URL: https://aur.archlinux.org/owlink-git.git (read-only, click to copy)
Package Base: owlink-git
Description: An open Apple Wireless Direct Link (AWDL) implementation written in C
Upstream URL: https://owlink.org/
Licenses: GPL3
Conflicts: owl, owl-git, owlink
Provides: owl-git, owlink
Submitter: frol
Maintainer: None
Last Packager: frol
Votes: 4
Popularity: 0.004612
First Submitted: 2019-09-15 11:16 (UTC)
Last Updated: 2019-09-15 11:51 (UTC)

Latest Comments

1 2 Next › Last »

jeech commented on 2023-01-05 16:49 (UTC)

I was able to build the package by just deleting the lines that changes the directory of submodules (ie git config submodule....)

BujuArena commented on 2022-10-23 16:59 (UTC)

This can no longer build from a fresh working copy. It can't clone the googletest submodule.

frol commented on 2020-06-11 14:57 (UTC)

I cannot reason about the validity of the patch, so I am waiting for some comments from the owl developers.

eldog commented on 2020-06-11 09:02 (UTC)

There's a proposed patch on the Github issue below that works.

frol commented on 2020-05-20 00:20 (UTC)

It is an upstream bug revealed with GCC 10: https://github.com/seemoo-lab/owl/issues/32

Stunkymonkey commented on 2020-05-18 09:37 (UTC)

building currently fails:

/usr/bin/ld: ../src/libawdl.a(rx.c.o):(.bss+0x0): multiple definition of `__packed'; ../src/libawdl.a(tx.c.o):(.bss+0x0): first defined here
/usr/bin/ld: ../libradiotap.a(radiotap.c.o):(.bss+0x0): multiple definition of `__packed'; ../src/libawdl.a(tx.c.o):(.bss+0x0): first defined here
collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status
make[2]: *** [daemon/CMakeFiles/owl.dir/build.make:153: daemon/owl] Error 1
make[1]: *** [CMakeFiles/Makefile2:276: daemon/CMakeFiles/owl.dir/all] Error 2
make: *** [Makefile:150: all] Error 2
==> ERROR: A failure occurred in build().

frol commented on 2019-09-15 11:53 (UTC)

@0x9fff00 Done

0x9fff00 commented on 2019-09-15 11:49 (UTC)

@frol Seems like you forgot to update .SRCINFO

0x9fff00 commented on 2019-09-15 11:41 (UTC)

@frol Actually, it would probably be best to keep it so it still conflicts with this owl-git package which doesn't provide owl.