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

[arch-dev-public] SBCL, kernel, and GCC 4.30
by K. Piche 29 Mar '08

29 Mar '08

While trying to build the latest SBCL I came across an interesting problem. The build halts midway and clocks the CPU at 100%. A quick search shows that GCC 4.3.0 changed the ABI slightly to conform to the formal standard as opposed to the defacto standard. GCC stopped clearing or setting the DF before function calls which is out of step with the kernel which expects it set/cleared. Apparently this mostly affects signal handlers called by the kernel. This causes problems with the signal functions in our glibc because it was compiled with GCC 4.3.0. I installed glibc 2.7-7 and sbcl builds fine now. A better explanation of the problem can be found at http://lwn.net/Articles/272048/ and at the very bottem there is a link to a Debian bug. The problem is fixed in kernel 2.6.25 and (sigh) there is a patch available for 2.6.24. k -- K. Piche <kpiche(a)rogers.com>

3 4

[arch-dev-public] Required libtool rebuilds
by Eric Belanger 29 Mar '08

29 Mar '08

Hi, While running lddd on my system, I noticed that we forgot to do some libtool rebuild. As it's late now, I don't have time before tomorrow (Friday) night. Here's the list in case someone else has time to fix that before me. - needed libtool rebuild (at least for pkg that were installed here): libextractor snd courier-authlib There's also this long standing tcl/tk rebuild (FS#9406) that I could do : timidity Thanks, Eric -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.

2 2

[arch-dev-public] iso release? libtool signoffs
by Andreas Radke 28 Mar '08

28 Mar '08

>Hi >Life changed here recently, new full time job starts, marrying and >such stuff. >Feel free to update any of my adopted packages, or just orphan them >that someone else can take care of them. > >Cya guys, >greetings >tpowa Is some way this might be the result of the past discussions... Anyway, what about our iso release? tpowa didn't want to have libtool moved before the release. Because I don't expect another new ISO based on his work in the next days I want to push libtool and related packages to core/extra. I know not all devs have checked their packages for rebuilds or just not replied. All known libtool issues have been fixed. I expect more from hidden depends after a move to core but that wouldn't change if we keep libtool longer in testing. opinions? can i get signoffs for libtool 2.2-2? -Andy

6 8

Re: [arch-dev-public] [arch-commits] CVS update of extra/lib/sqlite3 (PKGBUILD)
by Roman Kyrylych 27 Mar '08

27 Mar '08

2008/3/26, andyrtr(a)archlinux.org <andyrtr(a)archlinux.org>: > Date: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 @ 17:58:46 > Author: andyrtr > Path: /home/cvs-extra/extra/lib/sqlite3 > > Modified: PKGBUILD (1.37 -> 1.38) > > upgpkg: sqlite3 3.5.7-1 > FST build enabling patch wasn't accepted upstream, so we remove it for now > - # include fts123 - fixes #6217 patch taken from > - # http://www.sqlite.org/cvstrac/tktview?tn=2791,35 > - patch -Np0 -i ../build_fts_as_part_of_libsqlite.patch || return 1 When you're doing this please re-open corresponding reports. -- Roman Kyrylych (Роман Кирилич)

2 2

[arch-dev-public] [signoff] libarchive 2.4.14
by Dan McGee 27 Mar '08

27 Mar '08

Minor upgrade (12 -> 14), please signoff. If pacman -Syu works, you are fine. We can probably sneak this one onto the ISO if we get signoffs soon enough... I do need a build for x86_64, sorry I couldn't do it myself. -Dan

6 11

[arch-dev-public] Offline for uncertain time.
by Tobias Powalowski 27 Mar '08

27 Mar '08

Hi Life changed here recently, new full time job starts, marrying and such stuff. Feel free to update any of my adopted packages, or just orphan them that someone else can take care of them. Cya guys, greetings tpowa -- Tobias Powalowski Archlinux Developer & Package Maintainer (tpowa) http://www.archlinux.org tpowa(a)archlinux.org

5 5

[arch-dev-public] Postgres 6.3 todos
by Paul Mattal 27 Mar '08

27 Mar '08

So much time has passed since this list went up (almost 2 months) that there's some chance some of these have been rebuilt already but not updated on the list! Could responsible parties have a look? If you want me to rebuild these for you, just let me know. - P https://dev.archlinux.org/todo/48/

3 2

[arch-dev-public] Warning on php-apc update
by Pierre Schmitz 26 Mar '08

26 Mar '08

Dear PHP user, the update from php-apc to Version 3.0.17 includes a security fix: http://nvd.nist.gov/nvd.cfm?cvename=CVE-2008-1488 But it seems that the other changes of that new version are introducing several problems which will cause php to crash. It seems to be quite random but I have seen phpMyAdmin triggering those crashes a lot. I would recommend to disable APC until this is fixed. My current plan is to downgrade APC to 3.0.16 again and try to backport the security patch only. Greetings, Pierre PS: this bug-report seems to be related: http://pecl.php.net/bugs/bug.php?id=13505 -- archlinux.de

2 4

[arch-dev-public] kernel26 unionfs/aufs conflict
by Simo Leone 26 Mar '08

26 Mar '08

Hey guys, The unionfs patch in our kernel right now is old, and suffers from a few pretty bad bugs that cause frequent kernel panics. Anyhow, there's a new version at http://download.filesystems.org/unionfs/unionfs-2.x/unionfs-2.3.1_for_2.6.2… which works fine. However, it looks like it directly conflicts with the splice patch needed for aufs. Both unionfs and the aufs patch export a couple functions for modules to use in splice.c, and they happen to export them as different function names, hence the conflict. I'd argue that the unionfs patch does it "more correctly" given that it prefixes the function names with vfs_, where the aufs patch simply exports them as-is (there goes the namespace. ick.). Now, we can work around this with a dirty little hack that just exports both names, and has one simply call/return the other. Another alternative is to let unionfs do it their way, and patch our out-of-tree aufs module accordingly, which isn't a whole lot cleaner. The last option is to drop either aufs or unionfs, which isn't exactly desirable either... although they do provide similar functionality. Anyhow, I need some opinions here, and it's ultimately up to the kernel maintainers. I'm willing to write patches for options 1 or 2 if that's how you want to do it. As an aside, I'm going to read up on it and figure out who really does it the "right" way and let the other project know about it. -S

5 6

[arch-dev-public] List of packages with no license information in core, extra
by Aaron Griffin 26 Mar '08

26 Mar '08

Forwarding from aur-general (Thanks!). I removed the community packages list too. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Ronald van Haren <pressh(a)gmail.com> Date: Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 3:52 AM Subject: [aur-general] List of packages with no license information in core, extra and community To: "Discussion about the Arch User Repository (AUR)" <aur-general(a)archlinux.org>, arch-dev-public(a)archlinux.org Hi all, I just came across some package in extra and noticed it had no license information at all in the PKGBUILD (though the package is not even gpl). So I got the idea of checking if more packages had this problem and came up with a list of the core, extra and community repositories (it should be easy to run the script for unstable and testing too if required). Please all take a look at the list and fix the packages. It really are too much packages without license information! Respective bug reports can be found for core & extra: http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/9971 community: http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/9970 I also attached the lists to this mail. Regards, Ronald

5 7