Package Base Details: linux-ck

Git Clone URL: https://aur.archlinux.org/linux-ck.git (read-only, click to copy)
Submitter: graysky
Maintainer: graysky
Last Packager: graysky
Votes: 461
Popularity: 0.95
First Submitted: 2011-07-22 14:51 (UTC)
Last Updated: 2024-03-16 18:02 (UTC)

Latest Comments

« First ‹ Previous 1 .. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 .. 305 Next › Last »

graysky commented on 2021-02-04 20:27 (UTC)

@artafinde - Yes, it was a typo. It doesn't hurt anything.

artafinde commented on 2021-02-04 20:03 (UTC) (edited on 2021-02-04 20:04 (UTC) by artafinde)

Latest update bumbed version to 5.10.13 but forgot to reset to 1 the pkgrel - not a real issue, but just a reminde for next bump.

bryanjhv commented on 2021-01-09 02:30 (UTC)

@graysky thanks for the update but... I think it's missing a $ ($pkgbase instead of just pkgbase).

graysky commented on 2021-01-09 02:07 (UTC)

@Distorted - It is undone in the PKGBUILD. Maintaining is easier if I take the Arch config as-is. See https://aur.archlinux.org/cgit/aur.git/tree/PKGBUILD?h=linux-ck#n133 and else where in the PKGBUILD other Arch specific calls are commented out.

graysky commented on 2021-01-09 02:03 (UTC) (edited on 2021-01-09 02:07 (UTC) by graysky)

@bryanjhv - sure, 5.10.5-2

Distorted commented on 2021-01-09 00:32 (UTC)

Why is CONFIG_DEBUG_INFO=y set? It causes builds to use over 10GB in disk space.

bryanjhv commented on 2021-01-08 22:13 (UTC)

@graysky, is there possibility to change _package-headers' depends array using "$pkgbase" instead of fixed 'linux-ck'? I was building for silvermont (changing $pkgbase to linux-ck-silvermont the way some repositories provide it), and didn't notice it until installing linux-ck-silvermont-headers asked me to also install linux-ck instead of linux-ck-silvermont.

bryanjhv commented on 2021-01-08 22:05 (UTC) (edited on 2021-01-08 22:08 (UTC) by bryanjhv)

Ignoring the error would make things unpredictable. Just remove "-N" option so patch will try to reverse-apply and re-apply.

Kr1ss commented on 2021-01-03 11:14 (UTC)

@LucidComplex That would make it pass though also in situations where the patch itself fails for a different reason. Not sure if that's what you want to achieve.

« First ‹ Previous 1 .. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 .. 305 Next › Last »