Package Details: vim-youcompleteme-git r3216.0d855962-1

Git Clone URL: https://aur.archlinux.org/vim-youcompleteme-git.git (read-only, click to copy)
Package Base: vim-youcompleteme-git
Description: A code-completion engine for Vim
Upstream URL: https://ycm-core.github.io/YouCompleteMe/
Keywords: completion engine neovim vim ycm
Licenses: GPL3
Groups: vim-plugins
Submitter: thestinger
Maintainer: artafinde
Last Packager: artafinde
Votes: 169
Popularity: 0.034132
First Submitted: 2013-02-05 21:32 (UTC)
Last Updated: 2024-08-19 15:53 (UTC)

Dependencies (19)

Required by (0)

Sources (2)

Pinned Comments

artafinde commented on 2021-04-10 13:03 (UTC)

If you want to use system's abseil set the _use_system_abseil to ON - default is to download from internet during build.

Latest Comments

« First ‹ Previous 1 .. 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 .. 53 Next › Last »

eberan commented on 2016-04-12 01:32 (UTC)

Considering the gpg requirement is tripping up a lot of people, and doesn't provide a whole lot of security since I, or any maintainer, can just replace that portion of the PKGBUILD script anyway I think I will be removing the signature verification. Since I check the SHA256SUM and signature prior to packaging anyway, I see the key verification as redundant and an annoyance. Any comments are welcome, before I make the change.

eberan commented on 2016-04-12 01:25 (UTC)

@idiotbox you need to add the pgp key to your keychain for verification. Please check http://llvm.org/releases/download.html#3.8.0 to verify the correct fingerprint and run: gpg --recv-keys 0fc3042e345ad05d

idiotbox commented on 2016-04-11 21:50 (UTC)

Getting shasum fail in clang+lvvm libs. ==> Verificando assinatura de arquivo fonte com gpg... clang+llvm-3.8.0-x86_64-linux-gnu-ubuntu-14.04.tar.xz ... FALHOU (chave pública desconhecida 0FC3042E345AD05D) ==> ERRO: Uma ou mais assinaturas PGP não puderam ser verificadas! ==> ERRO: Makepkg não conseguiu compilar .

eberan commented on 2016-04-09 00:01 (UTC)

@hobarrera It looks like your patch is to (re)include python-futures as a package dependency, rather than using the one in the source/package. Is that correct? I made the change *away* from the package dependency as it seemed to/was causing issues and upstream had no interest in supporting us with custom dependencies. Unless you have a compelling reason to make that change, I'd rather keep things as close to upstream as possible. (see the comment history, from around beginning of March, for the relevant conversation and issues.)

eberan commented on 2016-04-08 23:55 (UTC)

@colonelmo I mean if you're using makepkg, make sure you're building from an empty directory as apposed to one with older builds in it. My build was broken until I removed the llvm 3.7.0 package and headers for example. I believe pacaur will always build in a new/clean directory (/tmp/<something>)

colonelmo commented on 2016-04-08 12:34 (UTC)

@eberan Thanks, but what do you mean "clean environment"?

whynothugo commented on 2016-04-07 23:31 (UTC)

Actually, it doesn't require an account - I made the silly mistake of creating a private snippet. I've made it public now. :)

eberan commented on 2016-04-07 23:01 (UTC)

@hobarrera https://gitlab.com/snippets/17477 gives me a 404

eberan commented on 2016-04-07 22:56 (UTC)

@hobarrera FYI gitlab requires an account. I'll create one anyway but gist/pastebin is more publicly accessible.

« First ‹ Previous 1 .. 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 .. 53 Next › Last »