Package Details: spideroak-one 7.5.2-1

Git Clone URL: https://aur.archlinux.org/spideroak-one.git (read-only, click to copy)
Package Base: spideroak-one
Description: Secure file backup, sync and sharing client. SpiderOak One client.
Upstream URL: https://crossclave.com/
Keywords: backup
Licenses: LicenseRef-SpiderOakONE
Provides: spideroak
Submitter: warnem2
Maintainer: warnem2
Last Packager: warnem2
Votes: 267
Popularity: 0.093022
First Submitted: 2015-07-18 19:17 (UTC)
Last Updated: 2025-04-20 03:51 (UTC)

Latest Comments

« First ‹ Previous 1 .. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Next › Last »

<deleted-account> commented on 2011-06-17 03:30 (UTC)

@dserban, thank you for your hard work and bring this package into shape. Would you like me to delete my now irrelevant comments?

warnem2 commented on 2011-06-16 19:02 (UTC)

That sounds a lot more complicated than it needs to be. Just because upstream doesn't put version numbers in the download files doesn't mean we can't have them in the PKGBUILD. The version numbers are all on the Release Notes page here: https://spideroak.com/release_notes

dserban commented on 2011-06-16 18:10 (UTC)

Package release 2 incorporates a mechanism to allow us to signal to each other when there is a new release. When the md5sum of the downloaded file changes, the first one of us to build SpiderOak will get this output message: "Please raise the out-of-date flag for this package: http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=24401" This is necessary because upstream has chosen not to include the version number into the structure of the download link. When you flag the package out-of date, I will recompute the md5 sums, increment the pkgrel by one and resubmit the package. I think this is the best we can do - help each other if upstream won't help us.

<deleted-account> commented on 2011-06-16 17:16 (UTC)

Are you updating this package without updating the REL inside PKGBUILD? I notice the last update is fairly recent but if you don't increase that number, it won't register for us that we need to update.

warnem2 commented on 2011-06-16 17:04 (UTC)

This package really should have the version numbers on there. The Linux client doesn't auto-update like others, so just putting "latest" as the version number means that the package won't update unless one manually checks.

warnem2 commented on 2011-06-08 20:42 (UTC)

The only thing you can really do is email SpiderOak customer support, like I did, and let them know you want a tar.gz tarball for installation on distros that don't use RPMs or .debs. For now, the .deb works fine for installation. Thanks for maintaining it!

<deleted-account> commented on 2011-06-08 16:30 (UTC)

ahh yes, I should have seen that with the slackware packages.

warnem2 commented on 2011-06-08 05:03 (UTC)

The Slackware package won't work because it's only available for 32-bit.

« First ‹ Previous 1 .. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Next › Last »