If there is any ArchLinux users among this community, or visitors please vote for the package as with 10+ votes we have a chance to include this package into official repository.
Thanks for working on this peerchemist! I very much agree that we should try to get into official repositories. AUR is fine but it is “use at your own risk” …
A couple of comments about your package:
I hope that you are going to submit a pull request for upnp-1.9.patch
The same is true for the .desktop file - would make it easier to get an up-to-date set of translations into all distribution packages
German translation: “Comment[de]=Offizieller Client für die Kryptowährung Peercoin”
I’m not sure if the naming ppcoind vs. peercoin-qt is wise
When reviewing your package I noticed, that there are already 3 other packages of the same software:
peercoin-daemon - this one is orphaned and has a clearly wrong version of 0.6.3-2 (in fact it is a git HEAD)
ppcoin-qt at version 0.4.0-1with 13 votes
ppcoin-daemon at version 0.4.0-1from the same maintainer with 5 votes
Your package quite clearly is technically more advanced and cleaner than the above, but I think this situation needs to be dealt with. Also AFAIK it’s AUR policy that there should be only one package per software. I think somebody with an AUR account should file a removal request for peercoin-daemon and you will need to discuss with the maintainer of the other two packages about merging them with yours.
Thanks for working on this peerchemist! I very much agree that we should try to get into official repositories. AUR is fine but it is “use at your own risk” …
A couple of comments about your package:
I hope that you are going to submit a pull request for upnp-1.9.patch
The same is true for the .desktop file - would make it easier to get an up-to-date set of translations into all distribution packages
German translation: “Comment[de]=Offizieller Client für die Kryptowährung Peercoin”
I’m not sure if the naming ppcoind vs. peercoin-qt is wise
When reviewing your package I noticed, that there are already 3 other packages of the same software:
peercoin-daemon - this one is orphaned and has a clearly wrong version of 0.6.3-2 (in fact it is a git HEAD)
ppcoin-qt at version 0.4.0-1with 13 votes
ppcoin-daemon at version 0.4.0-1from the same maintainer with 5 votes
Your package quite clearly is technically more advanced and cleaner than the above, but I think this situation needs to be dealt with. Also AFAIK it’s AUR policy that there should be only one package per software. I think somebody with an AUR account should file a removal request for peercoin-daemon and you will need to discuss with the maintainer of the other two packages about merging them with yours.
HTH,
Harald[/quote]
Yes, that upnp patch should be in official git repo.
As for .desktop file and all other files related to integration with modern GNU/Linux platform there is initiative to fill the gaps. Once I complete debian packages for Peerbox I will commit those files to official git.
As for naming, well it is not my fault. This one is on Sunny. Naming of binaries and files is not consistent thought the repository, so sometimes packages look hackish. I hope this will get fixed in future.
About other packages, well those seem to be older than mine but abandoned. I will file request for deletion and contact the manager of the other one to give up or merge. Hopefully he will comply. It would be easier if my package was listed on peercoin.net as official, then others would have to comply.
Sure. I mostly mention this because the old ppcoin-* packages look more consistent in this regard.
About other packages, well those seem to be older than mine but abandoned. I will file request for deletion and contact the manager of the other one to give up or merge. Hopefully he will comply. It would be easier if my package was listed on peercoin.net as official, then others would have to comply.
Yes, given that he hasn’t updated the packages in a while, I expect he will gladly hand them over. Hopefully the votes can be taken over, but what’s more important: We should not unnecessarily break the upgrade path. I don’t know how this works with AUR but usually with linux distributions, if you have a package installed and a newer version becomes available you get some kind of notification to upgrade. That’s especially important for software like peercoin, where outdated clients lead to forks of the blockchain and similar unpleasant things. We should be careful not to break this!
USE_SSL=0 should just make it compile with integrated SSL version, instead of using system wide one. At least that is how I have understood it.
Otherwise, it will not compile on ArchLinux as codebase is so antique now it does not support modern OpenSSL anymore, some patches are needed.