Package Details: vvvvvv 2.4-1

Git Clone URL: https://aur.archlinux.org/vvvvvv.git (read-only, click to copy)
Package Base: vvvvvv
Description: A retro-styled 2D platformer
Upstream URL: https://thelettervsixtim.es/
Licenses: custom
Groups: humblebundle3, humblebundle4, humblebundles
Submitter: gadget3000
Maintainer: ejona86
Last Packager: ejona86
Votes: 35
Popularity: 0.130800
First Submitted: 2011-07-26 19:28 (UTC)
Last Updated: 2024-01-15 18:38 (UTC)

Latest Comments

« First ‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next › Last »

ejona86 commented on 2020-01-11 18:54 (UTC)

I've fixed the DLAGENTS docs. makepkg became more restrictive in how it uses DLAGENTS.

vvvvvv-git follows the OSS git repository. It seems appropriate to continue using the binaries here for the while. If a binary release has corresponding source then we could consider building from source here. But it doesn't seem like it will work that way.

sleeping commented on 2020-01-11 15:36 (UTC)

Now open source!

https://github.com/TerryCavanagh/VVVVVV/tree/master/desktop_version

ejona86 commented on 2014-06-18 18:12 (UTC)

When a package is updated with a new stable release, please mark out-of-date instead of adding a comment.

BluePeril commented on 2014-06-18 17:00 (UTC)

new version on humble site vvvvvv-06172014-bin

RibShark commented on 2014-06-14 08:01 (UTC)

VVVVVV 2.2 is now out! Please update.

ejona86 commented on 2014-05-26 15:30 (UTC)

@neiesc. You need to download VVVVVV_2.01_Linux.tar.gz from wherever you purchased it from (generally Humble Bundle).

intgr commented on 2014-05-26 13:59 (UTC)

Did you actually READ the message that you pasted? > Read this PKGBUILD for more info.

neiesc commented on 2014-05-26 01:44 (UTC)

Dosn't work for me. Could not find hib://VVVVVV_2.01_Linux.tar.gz. Download manually to "/tmp/yaourt-tmp-user/aur-vvvvvv" or setup hib:// DLAGENT in /etc/makepkg.conf. Read this PKGBUILD for more info. ==> ERROR: Makepkg was unable to build vvvvvv.

ejona86 commented on 2013-12-07 04:23 (UTC)

If you run into problems with the beta, please say something. It seems to be a beta just in name and has many nice improvements.

ejona86 commented on 2013-11-25 05:42 (UTC)

Just looked into the the 2.1 beta's existence. I typically don't mess with betas, but this seems to be a beta just in name and that it may never be non-beta for non-obvious reasons. I'll play around with it and see how stable the beta actually is. I'll also have to decide whether I make people modify the script to enable the beta or have it be the default.

« First ‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next › Last »