Package Base Details: util-linux-aes

Git Clone URL: (read-only, click to copy)
Submitter: None
Maintainer: TrialnError
Last Packager: TrialnError
Votes: 5
Popularity: 0.000000
First Submitted: 2011-03-02 21:16
Last Updated: 2020-01-12 20:03

Latest Comments

« First ‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 Next › Last »

Anonymous comment on 2012-02-27 23:34

error: failed to commit transaction (conflicting files)
util-linux-aes: /bin/mountpoint exists in filesystem
util-linux-aes: /usr/share/man/man1/mountpoint.1.gz exists in filesystem
Errors occurred, no packages were upgraded.
error: failed installing the package

trying to upgrade from util-linux-2.19-5
any ideas?

Anonymous comment on 2011-11-14 18:22

I apologize for the delays, I just have too much going on now and haven't even turned on my computer in months(!). I must disown this package if only to let someone else take it over until I can get my life into a little more order. @gemon; you may adopt it if you wish, or anyone else who wants to for that matter. Thanks all.

Anonymous comment on 2011-11-09 21:22

I guess the only thing is to change PKGBUILD to refer to new git temp repository
I've also marked it as not updated as 2.20.1 is out since oct 20th, 2011. Check

Anonymous comment on 2011-10-08 21:01

Hi Great package but small error on my end: 404 Not Found
Worked well first time but now I had to copy around some file's good thing i don't clean my ~/aur that often ;)

Also a suggestion:
Adding a inithook to automate the kernel patch, mite save some work.

Anonymous comment on 2011-05-19 03:22

Sorry for the delay; been away for a while. Updated to new version and no problems so far on my side. Changed to direct loop-AES diff file instead of downloading everything else--seems ok to me.

Anonymous comment on 2011-05-14 07:25

2.19.1 is out since may, 2nd: check

Anonymous comment on 2011-03-04 03:35

small update:
after a brief discussion on the forums (in AUR section if you want to search) I decided it was enough to print a warning message for first time installs (e.g. post_install() but not post_upgrade()).

Anonymous comment on 2011-03-03 23:33

not a problem, i appreciate your feedback.
2) you may be right. i'll see what i can do and hopefully find a simple and non-intrusive way of dealing with this. may take a little thought preparation before i resubmit the package though.

Anonymous comment on 2011-03-03 22:47

hey, glad u found my suggestions useful...
2) yeah, i mean something like that. u may be right that the user should know what to's up to u, i don't know if there's a package convention or something. if you decide not to follow the config options check, at least a disclaimer with a warning should be put, in my opinion, expecially the installation of this package will remove the stock util-linux. if im not wrong, if u install this package and kernel is not compiled correctly, and there's not a patched loop.ko, system is going to be messed.

another option would be to check for a patched loop.ko, but i dont know if this can be done since that is a binary...

Anonymous comment on 2011-03-03 20:23

1) i'll fix that, thanks.
2) you mean when checking the config to check for;

i'm not sure how important this is to deem necessary a PKGBUILD to check system files. i personally think it should be up to the user to know if their kernel is patched or not but that's just my opinion. am i wrong in thinking this?