Search Criteria
Package Details: rbtools 5.1.1-1
Package Actions
Git Clone URL: | https://aur.archlinux.org/rbtools.git (read-only, click to copy) |
---|---|
Package Base: | rbtools |
Description: | Client tools for Review Board |
Upstream URL: | https://www.reviewboard.org/ |
Licenses: | custom:MIT |
Submitter: | alexmerry |
Maintainer: | Misery |
Last Packager: | Misery |
Votes: | 23 |
Popularity: | 0.000000 |
First Submitted: | 2010-09-11 10:59 (UTC) |
Last Updated: | 2024-12-04 10:00 (UTC) |
Dependencies (15)
- pydiffxAUR
- python (python37AUR, python311AUR, python310AUR)
- python-certifi
- python-colorama (python-colorama-gitAUR)
- python-housekeepingAUR
- python-importlib-metadata
- python-importlib_resources
- python-packaging
- python-puremagic
- python-texttable (python-texttable-gitAUR)
- python-tqdm
- python-typing_extensions
- python-build (make)
- python-installer (python-installer-gitAUR) (make)
- python-wheel (make)
Latest Comments
1 2 Next › Last »
qark commented on 2022-05-01 10:18 (UTC)
Please consider moving to PEP 517 packaging.
qark commented on 2021-01-18 14:20 (UTC)
Is https://archlinux.org/todo/cleanup-of-python-setuptools-dependency-for-console-scripts/ relevant for this package?
anatolik commented on 2019-12-10 20:56 (UTC)
Upstream says the script works with Python3. Is it time to move the package to python3 as well?
anatolik commented on 2019-12-10 20:31 (UTC)
packages python2-texttable python2-tqdm do not exist
newsboost commented on 2019-10-31 10:47 (UTC)
Hi alexmerry, oh, thank you very much. I don't have much experience with packages, but now you're showing it, it looks pretty simple and logically.
Anyway, at least for me, I found another solution, just "pip install rbtools". By the way, I'm actually not completely sure what is the definition of an "out-of-date" package here: "rbt --version" yields "RBTools 1.0.2" (installed through pip) and if this is "rbtools 1.0.2-1", I guess this is slightly newer (but not the newest). I don't know if the same minor version with a new patch released makes a package "out-of-date", but at least I think many users would prefer the PKGBUILD fix below, going from python2 to python3, which is the new "python-standard" to build packages on and it's important that packages are python3-supported, IMHO... Thanks for your help/feedback with the PKGBUILD.
alexmerry commented on 2019-10-30 22:28 (UTC)
I think the solution is to move the package to Python 3 - it's pretty straightforward to do:
newsboost commented on 2019-10-28 21:15 (UTC)
Ok, so I get:
Any workaround? Is this abandoned (I hope not)?
scorpp commented on 2014-02-23 18:13 (UTC)
portaloffreedom commented on 2014-01-06 15:09 (UTC)
alexmerry commented on 2014-01-03 19:10 (UTC)
1 2 Next › Last »