July 2009 - Arch-dev-public - lists.archlinux.org

[arch-dev-public] Need some advices for new dhclient
by Daniel Isenmann 19 Jul '09

19 Jul '09

Hi, dhclient is out-of-date and the last update to the package was from September last year. In order to fix this bug: FS#15515 - [dhclient] DHCP Stack Overflow in 'dhclient' script_write_params() (http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/15515) I get some troubles. At the moment our package is at 3.0.6, but ISC doesn't provide a patch for the above stack overflow, instead they adivse you to upgrade to 4.1.0p1, 4.0.1p1, or 3.1.2p1. I have tested 3.1.2p1 and our own huge patch (http://repos.archlinux.org/viewvc.cgi/dhclient/repos/extra-x86_64/arch-nm.p…) doesn't apply anymore. Nevertheless I have absolute no clue what this patch is doing completely. I have seen that it adds an additional option on command line "-x", but I don't know what it's doing. The other two patches from us are more or less needless with the new versions. This (http://repos.archlinux.org/viewvc.cgi/dhclient/repos/extra-x86_64/fix-broke…) was fixed in the new version from ISC and the other patch changes: - ifconfig $interface inet 0 down + ifconfig $interface inet 0 in the scripts and I really don't know why. The patch is called "fix-mac80211-wireless". Nevertheless of the patch problems above, I have tried the newest version 4.1.0p1. It's clear that our patches don't apply anymore, but I think they aren't necessary anymore. Like in 3.1.2p1 the last two patches are needless and the "arch-nm.patch" doesn't apply and I have not enough knowledge about the dhclient source code here. As I said, I have test the 4.1.0p1 and it compiles fine, BUT only if I disable DHCPv6. I haven't tried the package yet, but I'm not sure if we should deliver it without DHCPv6. Otherwise I don't know how many servers uses DHCPv6 at the moment or will use it. Should we provide the 4.1.0p1 package, but without DHCPv6 support? I have looked at some other distros, they have enabled DHCPv6 and it seems that it compiles. But I don't know if they have the latest toolchain. Your advice please...need some input here. Daniel

2 3

[arch-dev-public] Multiple checksum support
by Jan de Groot 19 Jul '09

19 Jul '09

Recently the ftp-release-list for ftp.gnome.org has switched over to sha256sums, which means that I can't copy and paste checksums from the mailinglist anymore. I see that makepkg supports sha256 without problems, but when I enter sha256sums=('somesum') into a PKGBUILD without modifying makepkg.conf to use them, makepkg warns about missing checksums. Shouldn't makepkg check for any supported checksum type by default? If sha256sums is defined, it should check them. If sha1sums is defined, it should check them too, etc. This makes more sense than depending only on the INTEGRITY_CHECK variable set in makepkg.conf.

3 2

[arch-dev-public] mesa 7.5 is in testing
by Jan de Groot 19 Jul '09

19 Jul '09

I've put mesa 7.5, xorg-server 1.6.2, xf86-video-intel 2.7.99.902 and a rebuild/update of all drivers containing DRI drivers in testing. The nouveau package was modified to use the latest version of libdrm instead of building from git, as the libdrm version is actually git master at this moment. I haven't included Radeon Gallium3D support yet, but we might put this into testing in a later stage. The libdrm package contains all the required libraries and changes for this. Please give these packages a test, so we can move them to extra soon.

3 2

[arch-dev-public] [signoff] usbutils-0.84-1
by Allan McRae 19 Jul '09

19 Jul '09

Upstream update. Signoff both arches. Allan

3 2

[arch-dev-public] [signoff] shadow-4.1.4.1-1
by Allan McRae 19 Jul '09

19 Jul '09

Upstream update. Fixes FS#15217. Sign-off both arches. Allan

3 2

[arch-dev-public] [signoff] vc/* -> tty* transition
by Allan McRae 18 Jul '09

18 Jul '09

Signoffs needed for the following packages: filesystem 2009.07-1 initscripts 2009.07-2 (what I tagged as -1 did not shutdown correctly) syslog-ng 3.0.3-2 udev 141-4 Allan

4 6

Re: [arch-dev-public] [arch-general] [signoff] vc/* -> tty* transition
by Allan McRae 18 Jul '09

18 Jul '09

Gerardo Exequiel Pozzi wrote: > Allan McRae wrote: > >> Signoffs needed for the following packages: >> >> filesystem 2009.07-1 >> initscripts 2009.07-2 (what I tagged as -1 did not shutdown correctly) >> syslog-ng 3.0.3-2 >> udev 141-4 >> >> >> Allan >> >> >> >> >> > For udev missing the last patch for PKGBUILD [#1] in my last-1 comment [#2] > This was deliberate - I did not want to deal with needing a -Sf for udev when these four packages are kind of tied together with this update. > And for initscript the patch for fix the rtc path [#3] (oops!) > This is not too much of an issue so I will hold of fixing for a bit in case other issues occur. Will push an update before all this moves out of [testing]. Allan

1 0

[arch-dev-public] Integrity Check x86_64 17-07-2009
by repomaint＠archlinux.org 17 Jul '09

17 Jul '09

======================================== = Integrity Check x86_64 of core,extra = ======================================== Performing integrity checks... ==> parsing pkgbuilds ==> checking mismatches ==> checking archs ==> checking dependencies ==> checking makedepends ==> checking for circular dependencies Missing Dependencies ---------------------- archboot --> 'portmap>=6.0-2' archboot --> 'vim>=7.2.166-1' archboot --> 'rt2500>=1.1.0_B4-27' Missing Makedepends --------------------- v86d --> 'kernel26<2.6.30' bcprov --> 'java-gcj-compat' gnome-speech --> 'espeak' Repo Hierarchy for Makedepends -------------------------------- core/crda depends on extra/python-m2crypto core/iputils depends on extra/opensp core/iputils depends on extra/libxslt core/iputils depends on extra/docbook-xsl core/e2fsprogs depends on extra/bc core/sqlite3 depends on extra/tcl core/ca-certificates depends on extra/ruby Summary --------- Missing PKGBUILDs: 0 Invalid PKGBUILDs: 0 Mismatching PKGBUILD names: 0 Duplicate PKGBUILDs: 0 Invalid archs: 0 Missing (make)dependencies: 6 Repo hierarchy problems: 7 Circular dependencies: 0

1 0

[arch-dev-public] Integrity Check i686 17-07-2009
by repomaint＠archlinux.org 17 Jul '09

17 Jul '09

====================================== = Integrity Check i686 of core,extra = ====================================== Performing integrity checks... ==> parsing pkgbuilds ==> checking mismatches ==> checking archs ==> checking dependencies ==> checking makedepends ==> checking for circular dependencies Missing Dependencies ---------------------- archboot --> 'portmap>=6.0-2' archboot --> 'vim>=7.2.166-1' archboot --> 'rt2500>=1.1.0_B4-27' Missing Makedepends --------------------- v86d --> 'kernel26<2.6.30' bcprov --> 'java-gcj-compat' gnome-speech --> 'espeak' Repo Hierarchy for Makedepends -------------------------------- core/crda depends on extra/python-m2crypto core/iputils depends on extra/opensp core/iputils depends on extra/libxslt core/iputils depends on extra/docbook-xsl core/e2fsprogs depends on extra/bc core/sqlite3 depends on extra/tcl core/ca-certificates depends on extra/ruby Summary --------- Missing PKGBUILDs: 0 Invalid PKGBUILDs: 0 Mismatching PKGBUILD names: 0 Duplicate PKGBUILDs: 0 Invalid archs: 0 Missing (make)dependencies: 6 Repo hierarchy problems: 7 Circular dependencies: 0

1 0

[arch-dev-public] Changing to /dev/tty* standard instead of old /dev/vc*
by Allan McRae 17 Jul '09

17 Jul '09

Hi all, Now [testing] is relatively empty, I would like to implement FS#11352 that involve switching to /dev/tty* instead of the old /dev/vc*. This involves altering the filesystem, syslog-ng, udev and initscripts packages (patches against git/svn this comment: http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/11352#comment44293). Can someore who is familiar with udev rules give the udev patch a look over. It looks fine to me but I might be missing something. There are a few commits in initscripts git. Should we push a new release at the same time or just patch the current version. Allan

3 4