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: 0.091161
First Submitted: 2015-07-18 19:17 (UTC)
Last Updated: 2025-04-20 03:51 (UTC)

Latest Comments

« First ‹ Previous 1 .. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 .. 29 Next › Last »

cfr42 commented on 2016-03-11 22:24 (UTC)

Great to see the update - thanks for this. May I make the quite minor suggestion that the change to the package build which makes untarring the package verbose be undone when you next update? As far as I know, PKGBUILDs do not normally do this and I can't, to be honest, see the point. If there is a point, I think maybe adding a message explaining what users should look for in the output would be useful as it really isn't clear to me *why* I'm being given all this information, which makepkg does not provide for any other packages I've built! And apologies if this suggestion is off-base in some way. I realise you made the change for a reason, even if I cannot currently appreciate that reason.

lockheed commented on 2016-03-10 09:36 (UTC) (edited on 2016-03-10 09:43 (UTC) by lockheed)

==> Validating source files with sha256sums... terms.txt ... Passed ==> Validating source_x86_64 files with sha256sums... spideroakone_6.1.2_amd64.deb ... FAILED ==> ERROR: One or more files did not pass the validity check It's probably because the scripts downloads newer version 6.1.3

cfr42 commented on 2016-02-06 00:41 (UTC)

No worries - seems happy enough to build now ;).

warnem2 commented on 2016-02-06 00:05 (UTC)

I finally fixed it, and I feel kinda dumb. I updated the terms to be SpiderOak's service agreement (the same one that everyone sees when they sign up for the service). I discovered that the ones that were previously in this package were just the terms of service for SpiderOak's website, which don't really apply here. However, when I did the git add, I forgot to include the new terms.txt file, so that's why the hash failed. But, it's all fixed now (I hope) and it should build properly now. Sorry again for the inconvenience.

cfr42 commented on 2016-02-05 20:29 (UTC)

I don't think terms.txt changed from 6.1 to 6.1.2, so the sums should be the same, I believe. (At least, when I diff'ed them, diff exited with 0 status, so I assume they're the same.)

warnem2 commented on 2016-02-05 15:17 (UTC)

@chem.tand - Thanks for the info. I'll update the PKGBUILD tonight when I get home from work.

noplomplom commented on 2016-02-05 12:06 (UTC)

The sha256sum for the terms.txt file is not correct, it should be '4819c8d923ab19e552e877b87adf1d45aca6adcb5dffcb238d7819501e6e6737'.

warnem2 commented on 2016-02-05 05:18 (UTC)

Yes, I know about the errors. The sha256sum is correct as far as I can tell :-/ and the PKGBUILD should still be successful if you do out locally. I'll look into it tomorrow and will hopefully have an update. Sorry for the inconvenience.

cfr42 commented on 2016-02-05 04:37 (UTC)

==> Validating source files with sha256sums... terms.txt ... FAILED ==> ERROR: One or more files did not pass the validity check!

vendion commented on 2016-02-05 03:53 (UTC)

The checksum for terms.txt is wrong.

« First ‹ Previous 1 .. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 .. 29 Next › Last »