| Summary: | Add Atom text editor to mageia | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Mageia | Reporter: | TheSuperGeek <comptes.tsgeek> |
| Component: | New RPM package request | Assignee: | All Packagers <pkg-bugs> |
| Status: | RESOLVED WONTFIX | QA Contact: | |
| Severity: | enhancement | ||
| Priority: | Normal | CC: | fabio.muller, hhielscher, lacesz, lovaren, marja11, thomas.bigot, yvesbrungard |
| Version: | Cauldron | ||
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| URL: | http://atom.io | ||
| Whiteboard: | MGA7TOO | ||
| Source RPM: | CVE: | ||
| Status comment: | |||
| Attachments: |
Proposal spec file
atom patch to build with python2 Desktop fix patch rpm_build patch startupwmclass patch |
||
|
Description
TheSuperGeek
2016-03-03 22:18:01 CET
I'd like to see it packaged too; I'm not particularly familiar with node.js packaging, nor am sure that we have the proper tools packaged already, so I haven't really tried building it myself yet. If someone steps up I'd be glad, if not I might eventually have a look myself as it's a pretty popular IDE nowadays. Whiteboard:
(none) =>
MGA5TOO Assigning to packagers collectively. Assignee:
bugsquad =>
pkg-bugs Sorry, bugs@ml and pkg-bugs@ml members, for the avalanche. 72 bugs with the "New RPM package request" component, had a severity of "normal" or more, which can lead to losing precious time when searching Bugzilla for bugs that urgently need to get fixed Now mass-changing that to "enhancement", as it should be for package requests. https://wiki.mageia.org/en/How_to_report_a_bug_properly#How_to_file_a_package_request @ the reporter of this package request Please check in http://madb.mageia.org/ whether this software did already get packaged, and close this bug report if it did. Please do also close it if you find a package with the same purpose, that meets your needs. Severity:
normal =>
enhancement Closed because i found something to replace it. Resolution:
(none) =>
WONTFIX I still think it would be a great addition, even if it's a hard one to package. Status:
RESOLVED =>
REOPENED (In reply to Rémi Verschelde from comment #5) > I still think it would be a great addition, even if it's a hard one to > package. Also, apmd conflicts with atom, because both provide a (very different) /usr/bin/apm (see bug #21701, that will be closed as invalid, because we don't support software we didn't package... it would be nice if that conflict can be worked around when atom does get packaged for Mageia) CC:
(none) =>
marja11
Marja Van Waes
2017-09-15 21:45:55 CEST
Whiteboard:
MGA5TOO =>
MGA5TOO, MGA6TOO
Helge Hielscher
2017-09-15 21:51:55 CEST
CC:
(none) =>
hhielscher Bug 20878 https://bugs.mageia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=20878 , also opened for this. One more here to request to package the Atom.io into Mageia official tree. There is already a rpm package that by now the only problem is the bin name "apm" which is the same for apmd and Atom.io package manager apm. I already requested at the other bug to remove the apmd from the installed packages because it's an outdated package that new hardware , which is needed to run Mag6 fine , doesn't need anymore. The packager maintainer could rename apm bin to apmd or apma just to have this package available for god knows what it could be still used. But Atom.io is far more important to the community by now than apmd which didn't have any use. I installed atom.io successfully after remove apmd and as my system uses acpi no problem was detected and atom is running fine, so the best thing here is to drop apmd from the default. If someone needs, install from the repositories. If so. Tks in advance. CC:
(none) =>
fabio.muller
Thomas Bigot
2017-11-17 16:29:09 CET
CC:
(none) =>
thomas.bigot Hello, This can be managed at least with Conflicts between atom and atmd, as suggested by Rémi. This editor is very popular, it would be great to have it in Mageia. CC:
(none) =>
yves.brungard_mageia
papoteur
2019-12-31 15:57:02 CET
Whiteboard:
MGA5TOO, MGA6TOO =>
MGA7TOO Created attachment 11589 [details]
Proposal spec file
It doesn't build due to missing arch, but here's a proposal spec file for atom.CC:
(none) =>
hamnisdude Created attachment 11590 [details]
atom patch to build with python2
Created attachment 11591 [details]
Desktop fix patch
Created attachment 11592 [details]
rpm_build patch
Created attachment 11593 [details]
startupwmclass patch
The spec file had a BuildRequires called python-versioned-command and it's src.rpm came from python3 so I changed the line to python3 instead. Was that wrong? Microsoft announced to archive atom in december 2022 and ending development/support. https://github.blog/2022-06-08-sunsetting-atom/ As this project will be unmaintained and archived... closing as WONTFIX. Resolution:
(none) =>
WONTFIX |