Search Criteria
Package Details: soundfont-fatboy 0.790-2
Package Actions
Git Clone URL: | https://aur.archlinux.org/soundfont-fatboy.git (read-only, click to copy) |
---|---|
Package Base: | soundfont-fatboy |
Description: | A free GM/GS SoundFont for classic video game MIDI, emulation, and general usage |
Upstream URL: | https://web.archive.org/web/20220124174052/https://fatboy.site/ |
Keywords: | dosbox midi pro-audio soundfont |
Licenses: | unknown |
Submitter: | krystianch |
Maintainer: | 3ndymion (nosewings, eclairevoyant) |
Last Packager: | eclairevoyant |
Votes: | 8 |
Popularity: | 0.003633 |
First Submitted: | 2019-02-17 17:06 (UTC) |
Last Updated: | 2022-11-18 22:14 (UTC) |
Latest Comments
1 2 Next › Last »
eclairevoyant commented on 2022-11-20 01:30 (UTC) (edited on 2022-11-20 01:32 (UTC) by eclairevoyant)
@Morn I'm not concerned either way; a PKGBUILD is just a script and can be hosted anywhere. I have a copy saved on my GitHub repo. Also, "deleted" packages are not actually deleted from the AUR, they're just hidden from search but can still be cloned.
Regardless, the package still builds and runs in accordance with the terms of use, so I see no reason to delete it.
Morn commented on 2022-11-19 10:45 (UTC)
@eclairevoyant: I have just noticed that Arch maintainers are usually very quick to remove packages that are no longer maintained externally and therefore considered dead. In the AUR too I have observed that some people are very trigger happy in that regard, even when a project still works perfectly. Arch is very different from the Debian attitude here. So don't be surprised if someone comes along in the comments at some point and wants to delete the PKGBUILD...
eclairevoyant commented on 2022-11-18 22:20 (UTC) (edited on 2022-11-18 22:20 (UTC) by eclairevoyant)
@Morn AFAICT there's no policy that explicitly mentions this on the AUR submission guidelines or the Arch package guidelines. I also don't see a huge security issue or such, since the checksums match and we're not downloading an arbitrary executable, just a soundfount.
I also don't see the need to delete it, as it appears to also be in accordance with the effective licensing directive on the original site:
Anyway, I've updated the URLs as discussed.
Morn commented on 2022-11-18 11:24 (UTC)
@eclairevoyant: Go ahead and change it if you want, I have made you a co-maintainer. Also change the homepage URL to point to the archived version then.
I am not sure if bringing back packages via the Wayback Machine is against AUR guidelines. Maybe it's time to delete this PKGBUILD if the original site is gone permanently. But I'll let others decide. It's a bit of a shame since this is such a nice soundfont...
eclairevoyant commented on 2022-11-18 08:20 (UTC)
@Morn The following command works fine for me:
I suggest using the mentioned URL in the PKGBUILD.
Morn commented on 2022-03-29 15:48 (UTC)
@nosewings: Yes, it's down. I can still download the 0.790 7z archive from Wayback Machine ( https://web.archive.org/web/20220124174052/https://fatboy.site/ ) in the browser, but the download does not work from the command line for me. So I am not sure how to do it from the PKGBUILD. I have made you a co-maintainer, so if you have any ideas...
nosewings commented on 2022-03-27 23:47 (UTC)
fatboy.site appears to be down.
3ndymion commented on 2021-05-01 00:51 (UTC)
Hi again. Interesting note: the SSL cert for the author's website expired a few days ago. Although it still works, browsers now give the scary warning to stay away from it. I just sent an email to let him know about it.
ccorn commented on 2020-04-17 09:44 (UTC)
@3ndymion: You could use something like this:
If the checksum test then fails, that would probably be due to an upstream update (which is why I have prefixed the new version part of the filename with
latest-supposedly-
, you might want to leave that out for brevity). In that case, use7z l
on the downloaded file to find the actual version, rename the downloaded file accordingly and update the PKGBUILD to the new version and checksum. (Such changes should be published here of course.)3ndymion commented on 2020-04-10 11:43 (UTC)
Hi. Part of the problem that ccorn described is still there. When the source package is already present, makepkg will check the sha256sum with the new value, & it will fail & exit.
The problem is that the source file always has the same name. A good fix would be to append the package version to the source file's name before the sha256sum check is done. That way, every future update will download a new source file & rename it with the new package version.
I don't know if that's possible or not with the build system. Perhaps the downloading & renaming & sum checking can be done manually if the build system can't do it automatically.
1 2 Next › Last »