Package Details: xteddy 2.2-3

Git Clone URL: https://aur.archlinux.org/xteddy.git (read-only)
Package Base: xteddy
Description: Your virtual comfort when things get rough
Upstream URL: http://webstaff.itn.liu.se/~stegu/xteddy/
Licenses: GPL
Submitter: xyproto
Maintainer: vesath
Last Packager: vesath
Votes: 4
Popularity: 0.453861
First Submitted: 2009-10-07 09:44
Last Updated: 2015-06-08 21:38

Dependencies (1)

Required by (0)

Sources (1)

Latest Comments

vesath commented on 2013-12-23 16:13

Thanks for noticing. This is fixed in 2.2-3. Cheers.

chneukirchen commented on 2013-12-23 12:24

/usr/bin/xtoys has a reference to a non-existing binary. Should just use PATH.

xyproto commented on 2012-11-20 22:37

I think your assumptions about what I'm saying is wrong, so I'll consider replying on arch-dev-public (or the forum). Or we could just let this one pass, after all, it's not important.

vesath commented on 2012-11-20 22:20

For once I do not have such a low opinion of the AUR as you seem to have. Official repositories cannot contain everything, simply because we do not have the manpower to maintain and support everything. What sense would it make to include in the official repositories packages which very few people use if it is to drop them back to the AUR a few months later when their maintainer loses interest in them? Such packages are much better off in the AUR when they are always up for adoption. And I will not even mention packages with dubious licenses, binary blobs that taint the kernel, etc.

The AUR is not a shady zone from where we should rescue all good-enough packages. It is a great place enabling the community to support software when official packagers cannot. And quite frankly I wished more unmaintained packages from the official repositories would be transfered to the AUR. Personally I would not call anyone who has never used the AUR or rebuild a package themselves a true Arch user. The rule of thumb is just to put highly popular packages in the official repos (when their license permits) to avoid users having to recompile too much...

But I am cynical so my belief is that TUs will keep adding huge and useless software to [community], lose interest in maintaining them properly after a couple of months, let these packages rot, and only one/two years after that when they eventually realize they haven't contributed much to Arch in a while and decide to retire will these packages get orphaned and finally moved to the AUR during the next purge. Not the best workflow in my opinion.

Well, this is a lovely flamewar we've started here, but it'd be more suitable on arch-dev-public. Being cynical, I think discussing all this is pointless anyway, but feel free to reply there if you indeed intend to reply.

xyproto commented on 2012-11-20 21:45

My comment wasn't entirely serious, but I'll bite: There are several reasons. Being in AUR or not is a marker for if a package is official and supported or unofficial and unsupported. I think xteddy is deserving of being supported. Being supported has consequences for how people perceive the package, for how bugs are treated and for how support requests are handled. Arguably, it's also better that it only has to be compiled once per platform, not once per user, even though it compiles quickly enough and some users may benefit from machine-specific optimizations, thought I doubt the latter is true for the case of xteddy.

vesath commented on 2012-11-20 21:00

xyproto: Why? This package is very well here in the AUR...

xyproto commented on 2012-11-20 16:17

Could this package please be moved to [core]?

Or at least to [extra] or [community]? :)

xyproto commented on 2010-12-02 11:40

Uniting xteddy 1 and xteddy 2 by giving this package to vesath.

vesath commented on 2010-12-01 14:05

Here it is: http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=44060

xyproto commented on 2010-12-01 10:57

vesath, thanks for the PKGBUILD. It would be nice to have xteddy 2 in addition to the original (and nostalgic) xteddy.
The official link to xteddy 2 is http://webstaff.itn.liu.se/~stegu/xteddy/xteddy-2.2.tar.gz, not ftp://ftp.usa.openbsd.org/pub/OpenBSD/distfiles/xteddy-2.2.tar.gz, I believe.
How about subitting your package as "xteddy2" or even "xteddy-ng" (next generation)? I think that could work out quite nicely. :)

vesath commented on 2010-11-30 22:27

To whom it may be of interest, I have made a PKGBUILD for version 2.2: http://arch.vesath.org/all/xteddy-2.2-1.src.tar.xz