November 2010 - Arch-dev-public - lists.archlinux.org

[arch-dev-public] [signoff] make-3.82-2
by Allan McRae 01 Jun '11

01 Jun '11

Upstream fixes for issues with make-3.82. This should fix all build issues reported due to make-3.82. Any remaining issues are probably not make's fault but need to be addressed in the software being built... Signoff both, Allan

5 11

[arch-dev-public] FYI: moved old isos to archive
by Pierre Schmitz 11 May '11

11 May '11

Hi all, just to let you know: I have moved isos from 2008 and older to our archives. They are of no use and recently we found out that at least one tier1 mirror had excluded them which caused some broken symlinks. Greetings, Pierre -- Pierre Schmitz, https://users.archlinux.de/~pierre

1 1

[arch-dev-public] perl-5.12.2 rebuild list?
by Allan McRae 13 Jan '11

13 Jan '11

Hi, Can we get some details of what the perl-5.12.2 rebuild list is for? Its description is "Build modules that have binary modules in them" but surely there is binary compatibility between 5.12.1 and 5.12.2... Or have the expected paths for binaries changed again? Allan

4 11

[arch-dev-public] Fixing packages with broken sources
by Pierre Schmitz 07 Jan '11

07 Jan '11

Hello Devs and TUs, as you might know some licenses require providing the sources somehow. While fixing the sourceballs script which implements this I discovered quit a lot of broken PKGBUILDs. We really need to fix those asap as this also breaks ABS and makes rebuilds a real pain (and impossible to automate in future). I have setup a todo list which can be found at http://www.archlinux.org/todo/48/ (there are also links to the raw logs if you like to see why makepkg failed) Here is how to fix it: * If you just missed uploading a source file to svn there is no need to repackage; just add that file and run archrelease $repo-$arch And: use devtools in futuer which prevent such errors * If the checksum is wrong: Have a look why this happened! This might be a serious problem. You need to rebuild and rerelase the package with a new pkgrel of course. * Upstream source has moved. If the checksum is still the same, just update the source url and use archrelease. No need to repackage. * Upstream source is gone. If there is a new version, update to that. If that happens regulary or there is no releiable upstream source you should upload the source to ftp.archlinux.org/other/$pkgname. If the source file is quite big, let me know; so I can blacklist it as there is no need to mirror it twice. Also, let me know if there are any false positives. Greetings, Pierre -- Pierre Schmitz, https://users.archlinux.de/~pierre

2 3

[arch-dev-public] [signoff] ca-certificates 20090814+nmu2-1 and run-parts 3.4.1-1
by Pierre Schmitz 14 Dec '10

14 Dec '10

Hi, these are upstream updates and a fix of the install script when installing into a new environment. Greetings, Pierre -- Pierre Schmitz, https://users.archlinux.de/~pierre

5 9

[arch-dev-public] tcp_wrappers- does anyone actually use it?
by Dan McGee 13 Dec '10

13 Dec '10

Guys, For the umpteenth time today I stared at ssh wondering why it wasn't accepting incoming connections until I remembered about tcp_wrappers junk, and put the standard "sshd : ALL : allow" line in hosts.allow. Does anyone use this for anything useful at all? 1. The package is now at version 7.6-12 (clearly it is getting a lot of upstream attention) 2. We have 11 patches applied to the package 3. It is inferior to iptables-based filtering 4. It is not very transparent Discussion welcome, but I am raising a vote to remove this dependency from packages currently using it (hopefully this is possible for all 21 of them, http://www.archlinux.org/packages/core/x86_64/tcp_wrappers/) and eventually remove it from core and the repositories. -Dan

6 9

[arch-dev-public] [signoff] zlib 1.2.5-3
by Pierre Schmitz 13 Dec '10

13 Dec '10

This is a core rebuild/cleanup. I have also added a workaround for a bug in recent gcc versions. See https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/20647 (bug report title is a little misleading here though) Please sign off, Pierre -- Pierre Schmitz, https://users.archlinux.de/~pierre

2 3

[arch-dev-public] [signoff] filesystem 2010.11-1
by Pierre Schmitz 08 Dec '10

08 Dec '10

Hi all, I recently adopted the orphaned package filesystem and made a little review/rewrite. Some of the changes may be questionable so don't hesitate to give suggestions. * add correct deps; the install scripts needs bash and coreutils * sync gshadow to group (fixes FS#19869 * Rewrite PKGBUILD and the install script to make it more readable * Add /usr/local to PATH * There were a lot of discussion about this. However there are not very strong pros and cons. * I decided to add it because: * If we include the /usr/local folders its natural to also include them in PATH * means if we really don't want /usr/local in PATH this subtree should be removed from the filesystem package completely. * There is no real technical downside in adding them; not adding it however has a little disadvantage for those who like to use /usr/local * Added /usr/local/etc/ as required by FHS * Higher level dirs override lower ones in PATH now * allow login from serial console; see FS#18578 * Add ::1 to hosts file (needed if ipv6 is used) * Don't try to guess the shell we are running * Do it like Debian or Ubuntu and only source the global bashrc when running bash. * Other shells like zsh have their own global config anyway. * In fact sourcing the global shell config was only needed/used by bash. * see https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/20288 Especially have a look at the last one. I have tested this with bash, dash, zsh and ksh but maybe I miss something. We should also remove the /etc/profile.bash file from the bash package as it is not needed. Should I prepare some announcement about this change if we are fine with it? Greetings, Pierre -- Pierre Schmitz, https://users.archlinux.de/~pierre

3 3

[arch-dev-public] [signoff] hdparm-9.36-1
by Tobias Powalowski 07 Dec '10

07 Dec '10

Hi guys, please signoff both arches greetings tpowa -- Tobias Powalowski Archlinux Developer & Package Maintainer (tpowa) http://www.archlinux.org tpowa(a)archlinux.org

2 2

[arch-dev-public] initscripts/mkinitcpio/netcfg maintenance
by Allan McRae 04 Dec '10

04 Dec '10

While looking through bugs for [core] packages, I notice that there are a large number of bug report for these three packages. In total they account for ~13% of the bugs in the tracker! Firstly, I want to clarify that I'm not here to point fingers at anyone for not dealing with these bugs. We all only have limited time... But given these are some of the uniqueness of Arch, I wonder what we _as a group_ could to do to improve this situation? Perhaps organize a hack-a-thon on IRC one day? Or we could advertise for help, with the selection criterion being a git repo provided by the applicant showing they can do stuff? Comments/ideas? Allan

3 3