Arch-dev-public January 2011

arch-dev-public@lists.archlinux.org

25 participants
106 discussions

Start a nNew thread

[arch-dev-public] [signoff] ed 1.5-2
by Andreas Radke 01 Feb '11

01 Feb '11

Rebuild. Honor CFLAGS+LDFLAGS, fixes FS#22284. Please signoff. -Andy

3 2

[arch-dev-public] [signoff] perl-5.12.3-1
by Ángel Velásquez 01 Feb '11

01 Feb '11

Hi, this is the summary of this updatE: * Tiny update of the PKGBUILD * Patch applied to fix test bug Tested on both Arches with several perl libraries / applications Please signoff -- Angel Velásquez angvp @ irc.freenode.net Arch Linux Developer / Trusted User Linux Counter: #359909 http://www.angvp.com

2 1

[arch-dev-public] [signoff] xz 5.0.1-1
by Pierre Schmitz 01 Feb '11

01 Feb '11

Hi all, this is a minor update for xz. Please sign off. Changelog: * xz --force now (de)compresses files that have setuid, setgid, or sticky bit set and files that have multiple hard links. The man page had it documented this way already, but the code had a bug. * gzip and bzip2 support in xzdiff was fixed. * Portability fixes * Minor fix to Czech translation -- Pierre Schmitz, https://users.archlinux.de/~pierre

4 3

[arch-dev-public] Server trash cleanup
by Dan McGee 31 Jan '11

31 Jan '11

Things we don't truly need, AFAIK: * gerolde: all of /srv/ftp/archive/pkgs * gerolde: /srv/ftp/iso and /srv/ftp/archive/iso What is our policy on this stuff? Nostalgic, sure, but usable or necessary? We have all sorts of full and base images, scsi-specific, etc. but outside of keeping arch-0.1 do we really want to appear like we care about previous releases? * gerolde: /srv/cvs * sigurd: Unfortunately not a lot here to kill, and our disk is hovering in that 85% range. * sigurd: /srv/cvs Pierre, can we adjust CLEANUP_KEEP down to 30? That is still a lot of time and would at least reduce the burden of space of some frequently updated packages. These are all suggestions, I am not opposed to keeping things if people have a valid reason. But this might also make any backup picture a bit more clear and give us more room and leeway to package some bigger things which seems to be the trend lately. -Dan

6 6

[arch-dev-public] [signoff] ifenslave 1.1.0-6
by Dan McGee 31 Jan '11

31 Jan '11

Likely that I won't hear much back, so I'll just move this in a week if nothing else. Just an old package refresh: * Change source location to a git blob URL * makedepends kernel26-headers -> linux-api-headers * Respect $LDFLAGS -Dan

1 0

[arch-dev-public] perl 5.12.3
by Ángel Velásquez 31 Jan '11

31 Jan '11

Hi, As you know yesterday a new minor version of 5.12 branch of perl were released. I've recently rebuilt perl 5.12.2 which is in [testing] waiting for signoff to fix a little bug with building with gcc 4.5. So, basicly we have to do the rebuild that we did the last month again for some packages, I can work with this if Kevin isn't available (cc'ing him) so ideally IMO we can start the rebuild of perl dependencies into [staging] then get into [testing] after the week of Feb 5th Opinions? ideas? -- Angel Velásquez angvp @ irc.freenode.net Arch Linux Developer / Trusted User Linux Counter: #359909 http://www.angvp.com

4 5

Re: [arch-dev-public] [signoff] iputils-20101006-1
by Tobias Powalowski 31 Jan '11

31 Jan '11

Am Samstag 29 Januar 2011 schrieb Andrea Scarpino: > On Wednesday 26 January 2011 17:51:09 Stéphane Gaudreault wrote: > > * Upgrade to 20101006 (this release fix the security issue > > CVE-2010-2529). Complete changelog here : > > http://www.linux-ipv6.org/gitweb/gitweb.cgi?p=gitroot/iputils.git;a=blob_ > > pla in;f=RELNOTES;hb=HEAD > > > > * As a workaround for FS#20251, a patch that contain the man pages is > > applyed. > > signoff x86_64 signoff x86_64 -- Tobias Powalowski Archlinux Developer & Package Maintainer (tpowa) http://www.archlinux.org tpowa(a)archlinux.org

1 0

[arch-dev-public] [signoff] pciutils-3.1.7-3
by Tobias Powalowski 30 Jan '11

30 Jan '11

Hi guys, rebuild with fixed CFLAGS. greetings tpowa -- Tobias Powalowski Archlinux Developer & Package Maintainer (tpowa) http://www.archlinux.org tpowa(a)archlinux.org

3 2

[arch-dev-public] Fwd: Extra package [mplayer] marked out-of-date
by Ionuț Bîru 30 Jan '11

30 Jan '11

I'm unable to respond to you because you "missed" to add your real email. This is a good opportunity to announce that i won't follow releases and i'll stick with svn snapshots. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Extra package [mplayer] marked out-of-date Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2011 20:41:41 -0000 From: Arch Website Notification <nobody(a)archlinux.org> To: ibiru(a)archlinux.org * Note: this is an automated message ab(a)cd.ef wants to notify you that the following package may be out-of-date: Package Name: mplayer Architecture: i686 Repository: Extra (http://www.archlinux.org/packages/extra/i686/mplayer/) The user provided the following additional text: Why not stick to releases? In this case 1.0 release candidate 4 ftp://ftp1.mplayerhq.hu/MPlayer/releases/MPlayer-1.0rc4.tar.bz2

1 0

[arch-dev-public] Stop reopening old bug reports.
by Thomas Bächler 30 Jan '11

30 Jan '11

I had this a couple of times now: Some of my bug reports, which have been closed for a over year have been reopened. Please do not do this. While the symptoms are related, the problem is most of the time completely different, and having two issues in one report is only confusing, and it annoys me a lot. Please please, don't do this, tell the users to open new bug reports.

1 0

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

Arch-dev-public January 2011