Package Details: spideroak-one 7.5.0-1

Git Clone URL: https://aur.archlinux.org/spideroak-one.git (read-only, click to copy)
Package Base: spideroak-one
Description: Secure file backup, sync and sharing client. This provides the client for SpiderOakONE.
Upstream URL: https://crossclave.com/
Keywords: backup
Licenses: custom
Conflicts: spideroak, spideroak-beta
Provides: spideroak
Replaces: spideroak
Submitter: warnem2
Maintainer: mbc
Last Packager: mbc
Votes: 269
Popularity: 0.004194
First Submitted: 2015-07-18 19:17 (UTC)
Last Updated: 2023-09-04 21:57 (UTC)

Latest Comments

« First ‹ Previous 1 .. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Next › Last »

dserban commented on 2011-06-22 10:04 (UTC)

PKGBUILD updated. @mond, interesting observation re: specific revision. Is there a sure-fire method of using wget to automatically discover the latest minor version and revision? It would be interesting if there was such a method because I could then dynamically set the value of the pkgver variable during the build process.

<deleted-account> commented on 2011-06-22 06:54 (UTC)

The beta is over. Also you can get a specific with "?revision=9810"

cb474 commented on 2011-06-18 20:28 (UTC)

Thanks dserban. And thanks for adopting the other spideroak package as well.

dserban commented on 2011-06-18 09:25 (UTC)

@cb474: In order to get the beta version (the 4.x.xxxx series) you have to append the string "beta=yes" at the end of the download link. That's how upstream distinguishes the beta channel from the stable channel. What I had noticed about the other SpiderOak PKGBUILD here on AUR (called spideroak-latest) is that it said "Beta versions included" in the description, but it didn't feature the "beta=yes" HTTP GET parameter in the structure of the download link, hence the confusion. I have adopted spideroak-latest and fixed that slip-up. Please note, however, that SpiderOak's beta channel is only available in 32-bit. @coolpyrofreak @cb474: I agree as far as major version numbers are concerned (3series vs. 4series) especially now that I own the PKGBUILDs for both channels (stable and beta), but I disagree as far as minor version numbers.

warnem2 commented on 2011-06-17 23:53 (UTC)

According to the Arch Packaging Standards (https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_Packaging_Standards): Package versions should be the same as the version released by the author. Versions can include letters if need be (eg, nmap's version is 2.54BETA32). Version tags may not include hyphens! Letters, numbers, and periods only. According to that, this package violates that standard. Please add the version numbers back to the PKGBUILD. If you include the beta, you need to make sure that the version number includes 'beta' somewhere.

cb474 commented on 2011-06-17 23:48 (UTC)

Would it be possible to include the version number in the name of the package, as was done with the other AUR SpiderOak package that has been disowned (http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=47096)? I do find this a bit confusing. Right now it says the package was upgrade on June 16, but when I installed it, SpiderOak shows I'm running 3.7.9810, which is the older version, not the recent June 15, 4.0.9823 update. Or are you not including betas in this PKGBUILD? Thanks if this can be simplified/clarified.

<deleted-account> commented on 2011-06-17 03:30 (UTC)

@dserban, thank you for your hard work and bring this package into shape. Would you like me to delete my now irrelevant comments?

warnem2 commented on 2011-06-16 19:02 (UTC)

That sounds a lot more complicated than it needs to be. Just because upstream doesn't put version numbers in the download files doesn't mean we can't have them in the PKGBUILD. The version numbers are all on the Release Notes page here: https://spideroak.com/release_notes

« First ‹ Previous 1 .. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Next › Last »