Search Criteria
Package Details: pipelight 0.7.20-1
Package Actions
| Git Clone URL: | https://aur.archlinux.org/pipelight.git (read-only, click to copy) |
|---|---|
| Package Base: | pipelight |
| Description: | A Rust based quick automation tool |
| Upstream URL: | https://packages.pipelight.dev/pipelight-0.7.20-1-any.pkg.tar.zst |
| Keywords: | ansible automation bash cicd continuous deployment git hook integration jenkins pipelight pipeline rust sh typescript wrapper |
| Licenses: | GPL2 |
| Conflicts: | pipelight-git |
| Provides: | pipelight |
| Submitter: | areskul |
| Maintainer: | areskul |
| Last Packager: | areskul |
| Votes: | 0 |
| Popularity: | 0.000000 |
| First Submitted: | 2022-12-19 11:20 (UTC) |
| Last Updated: | 2024-01-22 15:32 (UTC) |
Dependencies (5)
- deno (deno-gitAUR, deno-initAUR)
- watchexec (watchexec-gitAUR)
- cargo (rustup-gitAUR, rust-nightly-binAUR, rust-gitAUR, rust-beta-binAUR, rust, rustup) (make)
- git (git-gitAUR, git-glAUR) (make)
- make (make-gitAUR) (make)
Latest Comments
1 2 Next › Last »
areskul commented on 2023-04-18 15:18 (UTC) (edited on 2023-04-18 15:19 (UTC) by areskul)
Thank you for figuring this out! I updated the package generation PKGBUILD.
jghodd commented on 2023-04-17 18:12 (UTC) (edited on 2023-04-17 18:13 (UTC) by jghodd)
2 things.
1 - the PKGBUILD fails because it thinks it's overwriting a previously built package. the file downloaded is pipelight-0.4.26-1-any.pkg.tar.zst and PKGBUILD thinks it's going to be building pipelight-0.4.26-1-any.pkg.tar.zst, so thus the conflict.
2 - despite naming the project "pipelight", the .PKGINFO contained within pipelight-0.4.26-1-any.pkg.tar.zst says the package name is pipelight-git, so it effectively conflicts with itself.
To fix these, you need to 1) tar up your package into a file named something different from the PKGBUILD output; and 2) make sure the .PKGINFO file properly reflects the name of the package.
Buildable with errors. Not installable.
areskul commented on 2023-04-06 11:50 (UTC)
The PKBUILD was pointing to the wrong source. I updated it. Thank you for your reports!
jghodd commented on 2023-04-05 17:30 (UTC) (edited on 2023-04-05 17:37 (UTC) by jghodd)
Failing the build. Again. Whatever is being downloaded by the PKGBUILD is an html file, not a tar.zst file.
areskul commented on 2023-01-06 23:38 (UTC)
Thank you!! Remember me not to mess with the master branch again! It's fixed!
jghodd commented on 2023-01-04 22:56 (UTC)
Still failing the build:
jghodd commented on 2023-01-01 18:00 (UTC)
@areskul - getting a build error:
i know it's a long one, but you had to see the top error and the blowout at the bottom.
areskul commented on 2022-12-21 20:34 (UTC)
@jghodd - Woaw!! You are pretty fast! Will you push this pipelight-plugin to the AUR?
jghodd commented on 2022-12-21 16:47 (UTC) (edited on 2022-12-21 16:52 (UTC) by jghodd)
@areskul - i went ahead and changed the old package name to pipelight-plugin, partly because it has several components with pipelight-plugin in the file name. also changed its Makefile to relocate some of its components to directories named pipelight-plugin vs just pipelight (/usr/lib/pipelight-plugin, /usr/share/pipelight-plugin) so as not to conflict with anything you do going forward (like adding a library, for instance). the changes are confined to my distro, and my users will be informed of the change. i'm pretty sure not many are using it, if any at all, but in the off-chance some of my users are still using it, they'll have the pipelight-plugin package to replace it. since it's the same source base, it's just a straight replacement package using the same versioning. unfortunately, i couldn't use the 'replaces' tag in the PKGBUILD, because that would have blocked the co-installation of both the old and new pipelight packages.
jghodd commented on 2022-12-21 02:03 (UTC)
@areskul - i'm fine with it being a new package of new software. the last time i built the old version was january, 2017. there is nothing that depends on it, so i'm good with what you've done. was just curious about what happened. thanks for the explanation.
1 2 Next › Last »