Search Criteria
Package Details: pipelight 0.7.20-1
Package Actions
| Git Clone URL: | https://aur.archlinux.org/pipelight.git (read-only, click to copy) |
|---|---|
| Package Base: | pipelight |
| Description: | A Rust based quick automation tool |
| Upstream URL: | https://packages.pipelight.dev/pipelight-0.7.20-1-any.pkg.tar.zst |
| Keywords: | ansible automation bash cicd continuous deployment git hook integration jenkins pipelight pipeline rust sh typescript wrapper |
| Licenses: | GPL2 |
| Conflicts: | pipelight-git |
| Provides: | pipelight |
| Submitter: | areskul |
| Maintainer: | areskul |
| Last Packager: | areskul |
| Votes: | 0 |
| Popularity: | 0.000000 |
| First Submitted: | 2022-12-19 11:20 (UTC) |
| Last Updated: | 2024-01-22 15:32 (UTC) |
Dependencies (5)
- deno (deno-gitAUR, deno-initAUR)
- watchexec (watchexec-gitAUR)
- cargo (rustup-gitAUR, rust-nightly-binAUR, rust-gitAUR, rust-beta-binAUR, rustup-stubAUR, rust, rustup) (make)
- git (git-gitAUR, git-glAUR) (make)
- make (make-gitAUR) (make)
Latest Comments
1 2 Next › Last »
lafleur commented on 2025-01-07 02:49 (UTC)
Also, as stated in the PKGBUILD article,
base-develis assumed installed, somakeshould not appear in themakedependsarray.lafleur commented on 2025-01-07 02:39 (UTC)
Building this package fails because the SSL certificate for https://packages.pipelight.dev/ is invalid. This makes its contents highly unreliable. I wouldn't want to get a package from an unreliable source anyway.
Besides, I understand this PKGBUILD is ment to provide a binary package. If that is the case, I would expect it to be named
pipelight-bin, conforming with instructions in the AUR submission guidelines.Also, the
urlfield in the PKGBUILD should point to the upstream URL, as noted in ArchWiki's article on PKGBUILD - in that casehttps://pipelight.dev. For the download URL one should use thesourcefield, even for binary releases (see the same article).Given all these issues, may I suggest you follow guidelines of the Creating packages article of the ArchWiki ?
areskul commented on 2023-04-18 15:18 (UTC) (edited on 2023-04-18 15:19 (UTC) by areskul)
Thank you for figuring this out! I updated the package generation PKGBUILD.
jghodd commented on 2023-04-17 18:12 (UTC) (edited on 2023-04-17 18:13 (UTC) by jghodd)
2 things.
1 - the PKGBUILD fails because it thinks it's overwriting a previously built package. the file downloaded is pipelight-0.4.26-1-any.pkg.tar.zst and PKGBUILD thinks it's going to be building pipelight-0.4.26-1-any.pkg.tar.zst, so thus the conflict.
2 - despite naming the project "pipelight", the .PKGINFO contained within pipelight-0.4.26-1-any.pkg.tar.zst says the package name is pipelight-git, so it effectively conflicts with itself.
To fix these, you need to 1) tar up your package into a file named something different from the PKGBUILD output; and 2) make sure the .PKGINFO file properly reflects the name of the package.
Buildable with errors. Not installable.
areskul commented on 2023-04-06 11:50 (UTC)
The PKBUILD was pointing to the wrong source. I updated it. Thank you for your reports!
jghodd commented on 2023-04-05 17:30 (UTC) (edited on 2023-04-05 17:37 (UTC) by jghodd)
Failing the build. Again. Whatever is being downloaded by the PKGBUILD is an html file, not a tar.zst file.
areskul commented on 2023-01-06 23:38 (UTC)
Thank you!! Remember me not to mess with the master branch again! It's fixed!
jghodd commented on 2023-01-04 22:56 (UTC)
Still failing the build:
jghodd commented on 2023-01-01 18:00 (UTC)
@areskul - getting a build error:
i know it's a long one, but you had to see the top error and the blowout at the bottom.
areskul commented on 2022-12-21 20:34 (UTC)
@jghodd - Woaw!! You are pretty fast! Will you push this pipelight-plugin to the AUR?
1 2 Next › Last »