September 2012 - Arch-dev-public - lists.archlinux.org

[arch-dev-public] Away until Sept 2
by Gaetan Bisson 28 Sep '12

28 Sep '12

Hi all, I will only have limited Internet access over the next three days. Please feel free to fix my packages even more diligently than you normally would. Cheers. -- Gaetan

1 0

[arch-dev-public] The future of sysvinit in Arch: Call for Help
by Tom Gundersen 28 Sep '12

28 Sep '12

Hi guys, As the move to systemd is under way, and we will soon have packages in our repos that require your system to be booted with systemd, I thought this would be a good time to summarize the state of sysvinit/initscripts in Arch and their future. Abstract: I think the current state is relatively good (but I'm clearly very biased) and it should not be hard to maintain a non-systemd boot on Arch even in the long-run. However, someone has to do the work. NOTE: Please let's keep any replies on-topic. This is NOT about whether or not sysvinit or systemd is good or bad. Testing ===== This has been repeated a lot, but I think it makes sense to say it again: We are quickly running out of people who do early testing of initscripts. I.e., who follow arch-projects, review patches and test initscripts-git. At some point we will probably also struggle with a lack of developers/TU's testing initscripts in [testing], so if you feel passionately about a non-systemd boot on Arch, please join arch-projects and help with testing. Initscripts ====== Initscripts are currently fully supported and actively developed. Work has been going on for a long time to make initscripts and systemd share the same configuration file format wherever that makes sense, and this work is mostly completed (at least on the initscripts side). Moreover, code is shared between systemd and initscripts wherever possible (there might still be more opportunities for this, but the work is mostly completed). Together, these two developments should make it relatively easy to maintain initscripts for Arch in the long-run, even with a small user/developer base. I intend to maintain initscripts in the official repos as long as this makes sense. However, for this to be viable, I think we would need at least one capable and active initscripts developer who is interested in helping out and who uses sysvinit/initscripts as their main init system. In the long-run it would make sense for such a person to take over maintainership of initscripts. Anyone interested, please join arch-projects and post reviews, suggestions and patches :-) Packages requiring systemd ================= In the (near) future, we expect some packages to no longer support non-systemd boot. In particular I'm thinking of polkit, networkmanager and some gnome packages (I don't know which as I don't use gnome myself). There will probably be more in the future. We might also drop ConsoleKit from the repos at some point in the future. No need to panic though. The number of packages that will actually be need to be rebuilt to support non-systemd boot are actually very limited (certainly less than ten). An alternative repository just providing the relevant packages could very easily be maintained by one committed person (possibly even the same person that will help out with initscripts). I would be happy to help with getting this started if anyone is interested. A point to keep in mind is that the people who don't want to switch to systemd, might not be using ConsoleKit, polkit, etc anyway, so maybe this problem is not actually a real one. rc scripts ===== Currently we have a few hundred rc scripts in our repos (the scripts under /etc/rc.d/) shipped with our various packages. This will probably not change in the near future, but if for whatever reason some packagers decide to drop some rc scripts from their packages (and rely purely on the systemd unit files), then it would be very simple to pull the relevant scripts from our repos and ship them in a rc-scripts package in the above suggested repository. Concluding remarks ============ As I have tried to outline above, the amount of work required for a non-systemd boot is really small, and I'd be happy to help anyone who decides to take it on. However, I have seen some suggestions of ways of avoiding systemd that entails splitting the systemd package up, rebuilding tens of packages just to avoid a systemd-libs dependency or re-duplicate all the code shared between initscripts and systemd. This, in my humble opinion, is not worth the effort and is not something I'd be interested in getting involved with. Please direct any technical discussions to arch-projects(a)archlinux.org. Cheers, Tom

2 3

[arch-dev-public] Signoff report for [testing]
by Arch Website Notification 27 Sep '12

27 Sep '12

=== Signoff report for [testing] === https://www.archlinux.org/packages/signoffs/ There are currently: * 7 new packages in last 24 hours * 0 known bad packages * 0 packages not accepting signoffs * 2 fully signed off packages * 23 packages missing signoffs * 8 packages older than 14 days (Note: the word 'package' as used here refers to packages as grouped by pkgbase, architecture, and repository; e.g., one PKGBUILD produces one package per architecture, even if it is a split package.) == New packages in [testing] in last 24 hours (7 total) == * netcfg-2.8.11-1 (any) * brltty-4.3-6 (i686) * fssos-nsvs-0.5-9 (i686) * lirc-1:0.9.0-28 (i686) * brltty-4.3-6 (x86_64) * fssos-nsvs-0.5-9 (x86_64) * lirc-1:0.9.0-28 (x86_64) == Incomplete signoffs for [core] (5 total) == * netcfg-2.8.11-1 (any) 0/2 signoffs * rp-pppoe-3.11-1 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * run-parts-4.3.4-1 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * rp-pppoe-3.11-1 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * run-parts-4.3.4-1 (x86_64) 1/2 signoffs == Incomplete signoffs for [extra] (18 total) == * brltty-4.3-6 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * fssos-nsvs-0.5-9 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * hwloc-1.5-1 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * kdevelop-4.3.90-1 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * kdevelop-php-1.3.90-1 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * kdevplatform-1.3.90-1 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * lirc-1:0.9.0-28 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * openmpi-1.6.2-1 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * polkit-0.107-2 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * brltty-4.3-6 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * fssos-nsvs-0.5-9 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * hwloc-1.5-1 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * kdevelop-4.3.90-1 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * kdevelop-php-1.3.90-1 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * kdevplatform-1.3.90-1 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * lirc-1:0.9.0-28 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * openmpi-1.6.2-1 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * polkit-0.107-2 (x86_64) 1/2 signoffs == Completed signoffs (2 total) == * patch-2.7-1 (i686) * patch-2.7-1 (x86_64) == All packages in [testing] for more than 14 days (8 total) == * kdevelop-4.3.90-1 (i686), since 2012-09-10 * kdevelop-php-1.3.90-1 (i686), since 2012-09-10 * kdevelop-4.3.90-1 (x86_64), since 2012-09-10 * kdevelop-php-1.3.90-1 (x86_64), since 2012-09-10 * kdevplatform-1.3.90-1 (i686), since 2012-09-10 * kdevplatform-1.3.90-1 (x86_64), since 2012-09-10 * patch-2.7-1 (i686), since 2012-09-13 * patch-2.7-1 (x86_64), since 2012-09-13 == Top five in signoffs in last 24 hours == 1. tpowa - 4 signoffs 2. foutrelis - 2 signoffs 3. stephane - 2 signoffs 4. dreisner - 2 signoffs 5. allan - 1 signoffs

1 0

[arch-dev-public] remaining items in the systemd TODO
by Tom Gundersen 27 Sep '12

27 Sep '12

Hi guys, As our gnome 3.6 packages will be depending on systemd and are scheduled to be released in the not too distant future, I thought it might make sense to try and finish up as many service files as possible before that time. In our TODO list there are about 50 packages with rc scripts, but without systemd service files. I'll be going over all the orphans in [extra] tonight, but that still leaves quite a few. Could those of you with outstanding items in the TODO list please have a look and indicate if they are still intending to do it themselves, or if they need some guidance, or if they prefer someone else to do it? Cheers, Tom

2 1

[arch-dev-public] Signoff report for [testing]
by Arch Website Notification 26 Sep '12

26 Sep '12

=== Signoff report for [testing] === https://www.archlinux.org/packages/signoffs/ There are currently: * 8 new packages in last 24 hours * 0 known bad packages * 0 packages not accepting signoffs * 3 fully signed off packages * 21 packages missing signoffs * 6 packages older than 14 days (Note: the word 'package' as used here refers to packages as grouped by pkgbase, architecture, and repository; e.g., one PKGBUILD produces one package per architecture, even if it is a split package.) == New packages in [testing] in last 24 hours (8 total) == * run-parts-4.3.4-1 (i686) * systemd-192-1 (i686) * run-parts-4.3.4-1 (x86_64) * systemd-192-1 (x86_64) * hwloc-1.5-1 (i686) * openmpi-1.6.2-1 (i686) * hwloc-1.5-1 (x86_64) * openmpi-1.6.2-1 (x86_64) == Incomplete signoffs for [core] (9 total) == * mkinitcpio-busybox-1.20.2-1 (i686) 1/2 signoffs * nfsidmap-0.25-1 (i686) 1/2 signoffs * rp-pppoe-3.11-1 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * run-parts-4.3.4-1 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * systemd-192-1 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * mkinitcpio-busybox-1.20.2-1 (x86_64) 1/2 signoffs * rp-pppoe-3.11-1 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * run-parts-4.3.4-1 (x86_64) 1/2 signoffs * systemd-192-1 (x86_64) 1/2 signoffs == Incomplete signoffs for [extra] (12 total) == * hwloc-1.5-1 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * kdevelop-4.3.90-1 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * kdevelop-php-1.3.90-1 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * kdevplatform-1.3.90-1 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * openmpi-1.6.2-1 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * polkit-0.107-2 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * hwloc-1.5-1 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * kdevelop-4.3.90-1 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * kdevelop-php-1.3.90-1 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * kdevplatform-1.3.90-1 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * openmpi-1.6.2-1 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * polkit-0.107-2 (x86_64) 1/2 signoffs == Completed signoffs (3 total) == * patch-2.7-1 (i686) * nfsidmap-0.25-1 (x86_64) * patch-2.7-1 (x86_64) == All packages in [testing] for more than 14 days (6 total) == * kdevelop-4.3.90-1 (i686), since 2012-09-10 * kdevelop-php-1.3.90-1 (i686), since 2012-09-10 * kdevelop-4.3.90-1 (x86_64), since 2012-09-10 * kdevelop-php-1.3.90-1 (x86_64), since 2012-09-10 * kdevplatform-1.3.90-1 (i686), since 2012-09-10 * kdevplatform-1.3.90-1 (x86_64), since 2012-09-10 == Top five in signoffs in last 24 hours == 1. bisson - 2 signoffs 2. tomegun - 1 signoffs

1 0

[arch-dev-public] Signoff report for [testing]
by Arch Website Notification 25 Sep '12

25 Sep '12

=== Signoff report for [testing] === https://www.archlinux.org/packages/signoffs/ There are currently: * 0 new packages in last 24 hours * 0 known bad packages * 0 packages not accepting signoffs * 3 fully signed off packages * 15 packages missing signoffs * 6 packages older than 14 days (Note: the word 'package' as used here refers to packages as grouped by pkgbase, architecture, and repository; e.g., one PKGBUILD produces one package per architecture, even if it is a split package.) == Incomplete signoffs for [core] (7 total) == * hwids-20120922-1 (any) 1/2 signoffs * mkinitcpio-busybox-1.20.2-1 (i686) 1/2 signoffs * nfsidmap-0.25-1 (i686) 1/2 signoffs * rp-pppoe-3.11-1 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * mkinitcpio-busybox-1.20.2-1 (x86_64) 1/2 signoffs * rp-pppoe-3.11-1 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * systemd-191-1 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs == Incomplete signoffs for [extra] (8 total) == * kdevelop-4.3.90-1 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * kdevelop-php-1.3.90-1 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * kdevplatform-1.3.90-1 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * polkit-0.107-2 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * kdevelop-4.3.90-1 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * kdevelop-php-1.3.90-1 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * kdevplatform-1.3.90-1 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * polkit-0.107-2 (x86_64) 1/2 signoffs == Completed signoffs (3 total) == * patch-2.7-1 (i686) * nfsidmap-0.25-1 (x86_64) * patch-2.7-1 (x86_64) == All packages in [testing] for more than 14 days (6 total) == * kdevelop-4.3.90-1 (i686), since 2012-09-10 * kdevelop-php-1.3.90-1 (i686), since 2012-09-10 * kdevelop-4.3.90-1 (x86_64), since 2012-09-10 * kdevelop-php-1.3.90-1 (x86_64), since 2012-09-10 * kdevplatform-1.3.90-1 (i686), since 2012-09-10 * kdevplatform-1.3.90-1 (x86_64), since 2012-09-10 == Top five in signoffs in last 24 hours == 1. dan - 3 signoffs

1 0

[arch-dev-public] Signoff report for [testing]
by Arch Website Notification 24 Sep '12

24 Sep '12

=== Signoff report for [testing] === https://www.archlinux.org/packages/signoffs/ There are currently: * 1 new package in last 24 hours * 0 known bad packages * 0 packages not accepting signoffs * 6 fully signed off packages * 18 packages missing signoffs * 0 packages older than 14 days (Note: the word 'package' as used here refers to packages as grouped by pkgbase, architecture, and repository; e.g., one PKGBUILD produces one package per architecture, even if it is a split package.) == New packages in [testing] in last 24 hours (1 total) == * hwids-20120922-1 (any) == Incomplete signoffs for [core] (8 total) == * hwids-20120922-1 (any) 0/2 signoffs * libarchive-3.0.4-2 (i686) 1/2 signoffs * mkinitcpio-busybox-1.20.2-1 (i686) 1/2 signoffs * nfsidmap-0.25-1 (i686) 1/2 signoffs * rp-pppoe-3.11-1 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * mkinitcpio-busybox-1.20.2-1 (x86_64) 1/2 signoffs * rp-pppoe-3.11-1 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * systemd-191-1 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs == Incomplete signoffs for [extra] (10 total) == * kdevelop-4.3.90-1 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * kdevelop-php-1.3.90-1 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * kdevplatform-1.3.90-1 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * polkit-0.107-2 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * postgresql-9.2.0-1 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * postgresql-old-upgrade-9.1.5-1 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * kdevelop-4.3.90-1 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * kdevelop-php-1.3.90-1 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * kdevplatform-1.3.90-1 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * polkit-0.107-2 (x86_64) 1/2 signoffs == Completed signoffs (6 total) == * patch-2.7-1 (i686) * libarchive-3.0.4-2 (x86_64) * nfsidmap-0.25-1 (x86_64) * patch-2.7-1 (x86_64) * postgresql-9.2.0-1 (x86_64) * postgresql-old-upgrade-9.1.5-1 (x86_64) == Top five in signoffs in last 24 hours == 1. ttopper - 3 signoffs 2. allan - 3 signoffs

1 0

[arch-dev-public] removed btrfs-progs from [testing]
by Dave Reisner 23 Sep '12

23 Sep '12

tl;dr: If you've installed btrfs-progs from testing (0.19.20120904-5), please downgrade to the version in core. If you regenerated your initramfs while this testing package was installed, please regenerate your initramfs after downgrading. Tom, My multi-device btrfs VM doesn't boot with this package. You've removed our own 70-btrfs.rules which calls btrfs device scan. Despite what Kay thinks, the builtin he wrote doesn't do the same thing, and leaves devices unassembled. Regardless, the initcpio hook wasn't modified to include the new rule and just errors out on the missing 70-btrfs.rules. I'm a little wary of making this change so soon when systemd in testing is already completely borked on i686 (which means that even if this package worked, it could still break boot for i686). For now, I've nuked the package in testing for both i686 and x86_64. d

2 1

[arch-dev-public] Moving sbt to [extra]
by Andrea Scarpino 23 Sep '12

23 Sep '12

Hi devs, I've to work with sbt for a while and I guess it deserve a place in our repos. So, I'm going to move it to [extra] (if this is an issue, I'm ok with [community] too). Any objection? -- Andrea

1 1

[arch-dev-public] Future mesa-9.0 and related packages
by Laurent Carlier 23 Sep '12

23 Sep '12

Mesa 9.0 will be soon available. I manage for some month a repo with mesa built from git, in a splitted way like our extra packages (1). Package sources are of course available (2) and are changing regularly because of a move from a static built system to an autotools driven built system. This move drives me to apply some "workaround" to avoid liking breakage because of the way our splitting packages are working; i prefer that way to do instead of patching the Makefiles. I'm currently applying similar workaround with gambas3 packages, with much success, and it avoid the maintainance of patches. My packages are providing more or less experimental features like r600-llvm- compiler (that should be disabled) or vdpau (afaik only working for mpeg1/2). A new gfx driver is also available, for Southern Island class AMD GPU (radeonsi). The related ddx driver, xf86-video-ati will provide 2D accelerated draw and the glamor library (using shaders to accelerate drawing). I've tried glamor with my card (HD6870), there is some graphics glitches and limitations (you can't play at least flash video fullscreen) but it seem pretty stable and can be easily disabled at run time (it's disabled by default). libglu (GLU) is missing from mesa and is now maintain as a separate project. So to build libglu you need libgl/gl.h as a dependencies. I've not found an easy way to integrate libglu like in mesa-8.* releases. Keeping libglu as a dependency of mesa avoid the breakage of all our packages depending on it. In a second time, it could give us the opportunity to simplify the dependencies from packages that are depending on libgl and libglu (no need to keep mesa as depends, only as makedepends). Perhaps i'm forgetting other things. Comments ? (1) http://pkgbuild.com/~lcarlier/mesa-git (2) http://pkgbuild.com/~lcarlier/mesa-git/sources

2 1