Notice: Undefined variable: name in /srv/http/vhosts/ on line 248

Package Details: unity-editor-bin 5.5.1f1+20170201-1

Git Clone URL: (read-only)
Package Base: unity-editor-bin
Description: The world's most popular development platform for creating 2D and 3D multiplatform games and interactive experiences.
Upstream URL:
Keywords: dev develop engine game IDE unity3d
Licenses: custom
Conflicts: unity-editor
Provides: unity-editor=5.5.1f1+20170201
Submitter: edh
Maintainer: edh
Last Packager: edh
Votes: 15
Popularity: 0.623774
First Submitted: 2015-08-29 17:13
Last Updated: 2017-02-01 18:46

Dependencies (18)

Required by (0)

Sources (1)

Latest Comments

edh commented on 2016-05-08 08:57

Actually merely packages which could be build from source but are not should be suffixed with -bin. This is the reason why it is okay that the package you co-maintain is called unity-editor. This packages however goes one step further and simply repackages the content of the debian package: A already complete binary package ready to use on debian. It is more about whether your actually build a package or are repacking one. This saves quite a lot of disk space on assembling the files is faster. The naming convention for this is to suffix it with -bin because it repackages a already existing binary package. Bear in mind that it is not bound to debian. If the rpm package at some point offers better Arch compatibility, it would be a reason to switch.
Just search through the AUR and reassure yourself of this naming schema.

DoctorJellyface commented on 2016-05-07 09:05

The correct name for this package should be unity-editor-deb, not bin, because both this and unity-editor are built from binaries, so it just adds confusion.

Schala commented on 2015-09-30 07:33

FYI, Monodevelop isn't needed. It's just the default setting.

edh commented on 2015-08-31 15:45

@DoctorJellyface I handle thinks like the developers did: I merely refer to the URL of the license. This is done as well in /usr/share/doc/unity-editor/copyright, hence it should be fine for the creators.

DoctorJellyface commented on 2015-08-31 11:09

Hey, FYI we skip the eula checksum at the orig package, since it changes quite a lot, but updpkgsums ignores that.

edh commented on 2015-08-30 22:16

@gsingh93 Thanks a lot for the hint! The error occured due to the fact that the eula page updates every once in a while. However the problem should be fixed now.

gsingh93 commented on 2015-08-30 21:37

The checksum of the eula fails. I had to install with `makepkg -i --skipchecksums`