February 2008 - Arch-dev-public - lists.archlinux.org

[arch-dev-public] Catalyst naming - looking for suggestions
by Travis Willard 13 Feb '08

13 Feb '08

Ok guys, I've been talking to the AMD/ATI guys about getting ArchLinux packages bundled with their catalyst releases, and was told something interesting - apparently, the driver (kernel/Xorg) is independent of the catalyst release, and is still versioned the "old way" - for example, we used to have "fglrx 8.45.4" or whatever, and I changed it to "catalyst YY.MM" when AMD started releasing their linux drivers as 'catalyst'. The thing with this is, there may be special versions of the driver between catalyst releases for certain vendors, for example - so catalyst 8.01 may have driver (fglrx) version 8.45.5, but then they release a special version for laptop X that's 8.45.6, and isn't a catalyst release, as it's geared to the specific laptop's hardware. So, basically, I jumped the gun renaming fglrx to catalyst, as (in general) it makes more sense to keep versioning it the old way (which, at the time, I thought was going away, and was mistaken). So, what I'm wondering is, should I re-rename the packages back to fglrx? Leave them catalyst, and ignore any special versions that may, at some point in the future, come out? Re-rename them to something other than 'fglrx' to indicate they're the Radeon Proprietary drivers? I'm not sure how to handle this, and suggestions are more than welcome. I asked the ATI guys the same thing, and they said they'd prefer to have some 'meta-package' called catalyst that depends on the appropriate fglrx-* packages, which I don't really like, because then the 'catalyst' package is an empty package, used only for the deps it pulls in. Thoughts? Thanks, Travis

2 2

[arch-dev-public] repo cleanup: step 2
by Eric Belanger 12 Feb '08

12 Feb '08

Hi, This post is to give a status report on the still ongoing repo cleanup. The list of the recently removed packages is posted at the end of this message. The current orphans are as follows. We still have a short list of hardware-related or more or less useful packages: apmd bluez-gnome ipvsadm isapnptools mrtg speedtouch vconfig zebra But now I would like to focus more on orphaned core packages: dash mlocate perl shadow abs heimdal bcm43xx-fwcutter bridge-utils dnsutils ifenslave netkit-telnet mailx (Aaron: adopt it if you still want it) and on orphaned depends (see https://dev.archlinux.org/wiki/Repo%20Cleanup/) The list of orphaned depends also indicates what packages depends on these orphans and, in some cases, who owns them. As mentionned previously, it would be nice if everyone would make efforts to adopt the depends of their packages because it is just logical and would surely ease the .so bump rebuilds. Of course, anyone is free to adopt any orphans that they wish. However, it is possible that some devs already have the maximum workload that they can handle so they can't really adopt any or all of their packages' orphaned depends. If it's the case for you, let us know. Perhaps someone else, who can add to their current workload, would be willing to adopt some of these orphans especially if they use the package that depends on them. I'm sure we'll be able to split the present orphans workload somehow. Eric ================== Removed packages ================== adns dmcradio efax gpgme03 gprolog hashalot hnb hypermail ippl ircd jetty libnetdude libpcapnav mod_security netdude netkit-bootparamd netkit-ntalk netpipes oidentd pam_mysql perl-email-date perl-email-abstract perl-email-simple perl-module-pluggable perl-time-piece pidentd pppconfig sendfile tmda xprobe ytalk ================== -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.

8 12

[arch-dev-public] [signoff] Openswan 2.4.11-1
by Tom K 12 Feb '08

12 Feb '08

Now in testing for both archs - thanks for that, phrak. :) T.

3 3

[arch-dev-public] [signoff] capi4k-utils-6
by Tobias Powalowski 12 Feb '08

12 Feb '08

Hi fixes this file permission issue: http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/9358 please signoff both arches greetings tpowa -- Tobias Powalowski Archlinux Developer & Package Maintainer (tpowa) http://www.archlinux.org tpowa(a)archlinux.org

3 2

[arch-dev-public] [signoff] devtools 0.5.1, codename 'facepalm'
by Dan McGee 12 Feb '08

12 Feb '08

Simo and I found a rather embarassing shell script mistake that snuck into the 0.5 release that apparantly only Simo, Eric, and I used so it was no big deal. Details here: http://projects.archlinux.org/git/?p=devtools.git;a=commitdiff;h=e8490b3f14… Please signoff on this new fresh release. Make sure extra/core/testingpkg seems to do its job OK and you are probably safe. Bonus- the sed-magic in the PKGBUILD is no longer needed so both architectures can run devtools straight from the GIT repo now if they want. -Dan

4 5

[arch-dev-public] Disowning Pkgs
by Phil Dillon-Thiselton 12 Feb '08

12 Feb '08

Hello All, I'm going disown a few popular and frequently updated pkgs that I still "own" in [community]. I really must apologise for not doing so a long time ago. Please find a good home for shorewall and netbeans. Cheers, dtw

2 3

[arch-dev-public] flex 2.5.34 - build x86_64 and signoff
by Paul Mattal 11 Feb '08

11 Feb '08

flex 2.5.34-1 is up for i686. I still haven't gotten myself going for x86_64 builds yet, so would appreciate someone doing that. Also a minor version update. Drops the patch that was previously needed, as it appears to have been integrated. Cleaned up the install slightly, put the lex shell script in a separate file. - P

7 14

[arch-dev-public] [Request] Adding eric-plugins and dependencies to extra.
by Eric Belanger 11 Feb '08

11 Feb '08

Hi all, I would like to add a new package (eric-plugins) in extra that will contain plugins for the eric python IDE. Some of these plugins require python developpement tools: cx_freeze and pylint which I would like to also include in extra as they are currently in unsupported and community. BTW, pylint also depends on python-logilab-astng and python-logilab-common so they'll also need to be moved in extra. Any comments? Eric -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.

2 1

[arch-dev-public] Devs choice of filesystems (was: [signoff] xfsprogs 2.9.5)
by Dan McGee 11 Feb '08

11 Feb '08

On Feb 8, 2008 4:41 PM, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin(a)gmail.com> wrote: > I'm sure we have devs that use XFS, right? I actually wonder what you guys do use. I'm guessing 75% of us use ext2/ext3. Let's get a quick poll going here. :) I use ext3 on my two boxes with dir_index turned on for all partitions, and some have noatime in the mount options. /boot is the exception, which is ext2. Finally, I don't have a tmpfs for /tmp on either box, due to the fact that I tend to stick large stuff there and I'd rather not swap on a regular basis. -Dan

19 25

[arch-dev-public] [signoff] licenses update
by Dan McGee 11 Feb '08

11 Feb '08

Just an addition of two new licenses. Signoff should be super-easy- make sure you have a plentiful supply of licenses in /usr/share/licenses/common/. PSF, Python license- http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/9467 ZPL, Zope Public license- http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/8998 We have a few packages that use these, they may need to be updated to point to these guys. -Dan

3 2