Package Base Details: slim-git

Git Clone URL: https://aur.archlinux.org/slim-git.git (read-only)
Submitter: Cinelli
Maintainer: bidulock
Last Packager: bidulock
Votes: 65
Popularity: 0.000000
First Submitted: 2012-12-19 04:30
Last Updated: 2015-12-15 18:15

Packages (2)

Latest Comments

« First ‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next › Last »

erikw commented on 2013-10-22 17:21

Also, why not use the official up-to-date git repo?

http://developer.berlios.de/git/?group_id=2663

erikw commented on 2013-10-22 17:05

In PKGBUILD:37 there is one dot too much.

WorMzy commented on 2013-10-07 11:03

They've been merged for six months now, you just need to modify slim-git's PKGBUILD to explicitly tell CMake that you wanted to build slimlock too. An updated version of slim (with slimlock) hit extra/ last week, so it conflicts with slimlock{,-git} whether it explicitly says it does (conflicts/provides) or not. I was deliberating opening a bug report/general gripe about the official slim package not having provides=('slimlock'), but I'm not sure it's really a bug, since the AUR is unsupported, and slimlock's never been in the official repositories anyway.

That's a good catch about the optdepend, I'd forgotten about that. I'll remove that.

As it stands, slim-git and slimlock-git should be able to peacefully coexist, I'll look into why they don't, if they don't. I'd deliberately ommitted slim-git from the conflicts array because it (so far) hasn't conflicted.

I'll update this package in a bit, I'm currently suffering from some DNS troubles on my landline. :(

tealeaf commented on 2013-10-07 08:17

I know that slim and slimlock are now (apparently) being merged, so I can see why slimlock-git would want to conflict with slim(-git).

Right now, though, two things:

1) This has slim as an optional dependency, but also as a conflict. That seems bizarre.
2) The slim and slim-git packages don't provide slimlock yet. This means that it's currently not possible to actually have slim(-git) and slimlock-git installed without editing the PKGBUILD. (Unless I've made a mistake somewhere.)

Could we remove the conflict with slim until the slim or slim-git packages are actually providing slimlock?

Diego commented on 2013-06-02 18:40

also slimlock from now is based on dannyn repo

WorMzy commented on 2013-05-22 23:13

Heads up to anyone receiving notifications, I've changed the versioning scheme to something more appropriate than just the date you built the package. If you're using an AUR helper, this will probably appear as a "downgrade".

WorMzy commented on 2013-03-22 02:22

Well this is an interesting development. I don't personally agree with it, but I'm happy for Joel, at least.

Thanks for the heads-up, Diego. I'll pass on the message to Dannyn, in case he wants to push his changes to the slim repo.

I still believe that slimlock deserves to be a package in it's own right, for people who want a lightweight screen locker, but don't necessarilly use slim. So I'll continue maintaining this package for as long as the upstream git repo can build a stand-alone slimlock binary. I'll stick to Dannyn's repo for now, as it's the most up-to-date.

Diego commented on 2013-03-22 00:51

the merge between slim and slimlock is started
http://git.berlios.de/cgi-bin/gitweb.cgi?p=slim;a=commit;h=fccae89bbf97eb77b3c7a6c55b37ffa9c60eeaee
Someone could tell to dannyn?
https://github.com/dannyn

Diego commented on 2013-03-22 00:45

the merge between slim and slimlock is started
http://git.berlios.de/cgi-bin/gitweb.cgi?p=slim;a=commit;h=fccae89bbf97eb77b3c7a6c55b37ffa9c60eeaee

Diego commented on 2013-03-13 15:05

Sorry... i'm confused today...