New package: pwvucontrol-0.5.2#60506
Conversation
| revision=1 | ||
| build_style=meson | ||
| hostmakedepends="pkg-config gettext-devel docbook-xml libpipewire blueprint-compiler" | ||
| makedepends="rust glib-devel gtk4-devel libadwaita-devel libpipewire gettext docbook-xml cmake pipewire-devel wireplumber-devel cargo desktop-file-utils clang19-devel" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
desktop-file-utils, gettext, cargo, rust, and cmake on the target seem very wrong, those should be hostmakedepends (and a makedepends on rust-std)
pipewire-devel depends on libpipewire already, so that's redundant
There was a problem hiding this comment.
hostmakedepends="blueprint-compiler cargo clang desktop-file-utils gettext
glib-devel gtk4-update-icon-cache pkg-config"
makedepends="libadwaita-devel pipewire-devel rust-std wireplumber-devel"
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You're right, thanks!
Should have looked into the details of the template instead of just building it...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should have looked into the details of the template instead of just building it...
What do you mean by this comment?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It means it was converted from AUR by an AI
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What do you mean by this comment?
As I said in the PR description, the PR is based on an other PR that tried to add support for pwvucontrol #57657.
It means it was converted from AUR by an AI
What the hell? If you had looked at my GitHub profile, you would have known that this is absolutely not the case...
I don't want to start a war, but please think about it carefully before accusing people of generating all their stuff with LLMs.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't mind giving more context on this PR:
- New package: pwvucontrol-0.5.1 #57657 couldn't be merged because pwvucontrol didn't yet support wireplumber 0.5, which Void Linux is using.
- I subscribed to the upstream issue to wait until it's officially supported
- I took the template, updated the version, and opened the PR
I agree that I should certainly have looked into the dependencies in the template, then I would have noticed that some of them don't make much sense in makedepends, I'm sorry for that. That's why I commented
Should have looked into the details of the template instead of just building it...
above.
6 participants
Testing the changes
New package
Local build testing
based on #57657