March 2007 - Arch-dev-public - lists.archlinux.org

[arch-dev-public] x86_64: improving default CFLAGS
by Andreas Radke 16 Apr '07

16 Apr '07

http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=27139 after some discussions in this thread we want to change our default compiler flags. we want to make use of the SSE3 extensions most x86_64 cpus have. to not break backward compatibility for those few early cpus that lack SSE3 extensions we want to do it with -mtune. this is how we want to set it for the future: CFLAGS="-march=x86-64 -mtune=nocona -O2 -pipe" CXXFLAGS="-march=x86-64 -mtune=nocona -O2 -pipe" some testing is still required. i would like to put a modified version of pacman to testing right after it has moved to current. when everything is ok we would ask the pacman devs to change it to the default makepkg.conf. please discuss. Andy (for i686 are also some speedups possible but that's not my task)

5 7

[arch-dev-public] moving to pacbuild
by Aaron Griffin 01 Apr '07

01 Apr '07

This is one of those things that's not gonna get done until someone does it. For a trial (until we determine if it hurts us), I want to try and install pacbuild on gerolde. I think, however, it needs a good ol' -Syu, which I'll probably leave in more capable hands (though we need to make sure we don't break django with python2.5, heh). It should be easy to setup and apple daemon on there, then we need to get some build machines together. I have one here I can use, and can probably be sneaky about it and use one of the arch machines at work. We'd still need some x86_64 build machines, but that can't be all that hard. If there's a problem with putting this on gerolde at this stage, I _could_ open up my home machine for a while. Jason, is there anything blocking us from using pacbuild right now? - Aaron

4 5

[arch-dev-public] Uniform handling of webservers
by Aaron Griffin 31 Mar '07

31 Mar '07

Moving this discussion off of the private list, mainly because it wasn't resolved - I think Tobais' points here should be addressed. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: tobias(a)justdreams.de <tobias(a)justdreams.de> Date: Mar 25, 2007 1:11 PM Subject: Re: [arch-dev] Uniform handling of webservers To: Development Discussion for Arch Linux <arch-dev(a)archlinux.org> > Since this discussion kinda went away... I'm gonna bring it back up > (hooray gmail stars keeping me on task!). Hi, most people agree on /srv/www , but we have different opinions on how we wanna lay out the basic structure. Let's try to summary the ideas and concerns. I use apache and lighttpd to illustrate the issues: 1. shall we continuing using nobody as primary www user(group) or now when we unify things go and create a dedicated wwwuser with a reasonable set of permissions? 2. shall we create subdirs /srv/www/{httpd,lighttpd} per webserver as some people suggested? Web administration is an administrators job - not a package managers. 3. If we create subdirs, shall we have some magic that routes localhost automatically $wwwhome of the latest installed webserver? Do we wanna have magic at all? 4. Subdirs per webserver leave us with the issue, that we do not have a distinct directory, where we can install apps like phpMyAdmin per default to work out of the box. This is bad IMHO. The issue can be partially resolved by aliases or vhosts, but this requires both user interaction and some config tweaking, as lighttpd does not support easy *.conf handling with the vhost handling as apache does. There might be a way, but I have to investigate that. Also, this might mean that we will have to create special handlings per possibly installed webserver in the phpmyadmin.install post_insall(), I would like to get away without it! -T

4 4

[arch-dev-public] Updating the licenses package
by Aaron Griffin 30 Mar '07

30 Mar '07

Hey all, I actually just came across this page here: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical I think we should go through and add some more common ones to the licenses packages (it's text, it'll compress well). This comes up because we probably need an update for the Python license anyway. Maybe we can even add all of them? Only problem is they don't seem to export plain text, so we can't really automate it... ewww. - Aaron

4 8

[arch-dev-public] 0.8 torrents
by Aaron Griffin 30 Mar '07

30 Mar '07

I created the torrents for the iso images, and put them on the ftp earlier today, so they should start hitting mirrors soon. I also placed them up on linuxtracker.org: I'm currently seeding all 6, though quite poorly - I need to open some more ports but my silly router doesn't accept ranges (one at a time is nasty). A few other people (Thomas, Dan, stonecrest maybe, etc) are also seeding some of them. Due to our recent bandwidth shenanigans, we should probably suggest the torrents over ftp download. Perhaps when neotuli updates the download page, we can move it around so the torrents appear to be the first choice? /me shrugs Enjoy the torrents - Aaron

5 6

[arch-dev-public] Final python 2.5 rebuild list set
by Jason Chu 29 Mar '07

29 Mar '07

I've finally finished creating the python 2.5 todo list. This is the list as of about 4 days ago, so some of these packages have already been rebuilt. If one of your packages has been rebuilt, feel free to just mark it as completed. http://archlinux.org/todo/40/ I've sent this email to arch-dev-public and arch-dev, just in case some developers aren't on arch-dev-public yet. If you're not on there, now's a good time to add yourself. Jason

1 0

[arch-dev-public] All setup
by Aaron Griffin 29 Mar '07

29 Mar '07

Ok, so I fixed a few mailman issues (bad img URLs, some urls having 'www.' and some without, mailman urls with and without 'www.' showing different MLs, etc) and switched this list to "anyone can subscribe" - users are moderated by default, which means they can't post to the list. I'll keep my eye on the admin queue for now, and make sure approve all our developers as they sign up - send me an email if I didn't get to you, and I'll do it asap. Is everything good? Would anyone mind if I announced this list to the public? - Aaron

3 3

[arch-dev-public] iputils & traceroute packaging
by Dan McGee 29 Mar '07

29 Mar '07

Quick question for whoever is responsible: Why on earth do we have a separate traceroute package that is not a part of base? This seems to fit much better being in the iputils package, although I am not familiar with the sources of these packages and why they are developed separately. $ pacman -Ql traceroute traceroute /usr/bin/traceroute traceroute /usr/man/man8/traceroute.8.gz $ pacman -Ql iputils iputils /bin/ping iputils /bin/ping6 iputils /etc/protocols iputils /etc/services iputils /usr/man/man8/arping.8.gz iputils /usr/man/man8/clockdiff.8.gz iputils /usr/man/man8/ping.8.gz iputils /usr/man/man8/rarpd.8.gz iputils /usr/man/man8/rdisc.8.gz iputils /usr/man/man8/tftpd.8.gz iputils /usr/man/man8/tracepath.8.gz iputils /usr/man/man8/traceroute6.8.gz iputils /usr/sbin/arping iputils /usr/sbin/clockdiff iputils /usr/sbin/rarpd iputils /usr/sbin/rdisc iputils /usr/sbin/tftpd iputils /usr/sbin/tracepath iputils /usr/sbin/tracepath6 iputils /usr/sbin/traceroute6 What I find really weird is the inclusion of traceroute6 in iputils. This all came up while going about "fixing" this bug: <http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/6725> I don't want to make mtr setuid unless we are going to make traceroute suid. mtr > traceroute > ping, so it should be at no higher of a level than the one below it. What should we be installing programs like this as? I think it makes sense to have ping and traceroute available to a user, so maybe they should all be SUID, currently traceroute6 is not. Comments and thoughts appreciated. -Dan

1 0

Re: [arch-dev-public] Test
by Jason Chu 29 Mar '07

29 Mar '07

On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 10:34:49 -0500 "Aaron Griffin" <aaronmgriffin(a)gmail.com> wrote: > hey all, respond if you get this (there's 4 of you). Response. Jason

2 1