February 2026 - Arch-dev-public - lists.archlinux.org

Stepping down as Arch Linux Packager
by kgizdov＠archlinux.org 15 Feb '26

15 Feb '26

Dear all, After careful consideration, I have decided to step down from my role as an Arch Linux Packager. Over the past months I have not been able to maintain the level of activity and responsiveness that this role requires. I made several attempts to reorganize my schedule and return to consistent contributions, but it has become clear that I cannot currently dedicate the time and focus that Arch deserves. I believe it is more responsible to step aside. It has been a privilege to contribute to Arch and to work alongside such a competent and principled team. The standards we uphold are something I deeply respect. This is not a farewell to the project itself. I hope to return to an active Packager role in the future when I can commit the time and energy it deserves. Thank you all for the collaboration, the discussions, the memories, and the shared commitment to keeping Arch on the edge. Best regards, Konstantin Gizdov

5 4

glibc 2.43 in testing - moving to stable repos affected
by Frederik Schwan 10 Feb '26

10 Feb '26

I've pushed glibc 2.43 to testing. Do not move packages linked against 2.43 to extra or core until glibc itself moves around Thursday/Friday. Otherwise the package will probably break. Best regards, Frederik

1 0

radicale 3.6.0-1 pulled from extra-testing
by Jakub Klinkovský 09 Feb '26

09 Feb '26

Hi, the radicale 3.6.0-1 package has been pulled from extra-testing. If you have upgraded, downgrade to the version available in extra. The reason is that the new version strictly requires python-bcrypt < 5.0.0 *or* the "libpass" fork of python-passlib. Since we already have python-bcrypt 5.0.0, we need to wait until we can package libpass in our repositories: https://github.com/notypecheck/passlib/issues/11 Jakub

1 0

Guidelines for reproducible Go binaries (2026)
by kpcyrd 04 Feb '26

04 Feb '26

hello, I joined as co-maintainer for syft after the recent todo item[1] and modernized the PKGBUILD. Based on the repro-get package[2] (which did reproduce successfully) I've changed the syft build instructions to this: ``` export CGO_CPPFLAGS="${CPPFLAGS}" export CGO_CFLAGS="${CFLAGS}" export CGO_CXXFLAGS="${CXXFLAGS}" export CGO_LDFLAGS="${LDFLAGS}" export CGO_REQUIRED="1" mkdir -p build go build \ -o build/ \ -buildmode=pie \ -mod=readonly \ -ldflags "-compressdwarf=false -linkmode=external -X main.version=${pkgver}" \ ./... ``` This did not reproduce in our verification system however: ``` │ ├── usr/bin/syft │ │┄ File has been modified after NT_GNU_BUILD_ID has been applied. │ │ ├── readelf --wide --notes {} │ │ │ @@ -1,16 +1,16 @@ │ │ │ │ │ │ Displaying notes found in: .note.gnu.property │ │ │ Owner Data size Description │ │ │ GNU 0x00000010 NT_GNU_PROPERTY_TYPE_0 Properties: x86 ISA needed: x86-64-baseline │ │ │ │ │ │ Displaying notes found in: .note.gnu.build-id │ │ │ Owner Data size Description │ │ │ - GNU 0x00000014 NT_GNU_BUILD_ID (unique build ID bitstring) Build ID: 5d4cf47367358962632d3bfd04530c513f897790 │ │ │ + GNU 0x00000014 NT_GNU_BUILD_ID (unique build ID bitstring) Build ID: dd9283dbad8ad8c4b742f7ac88f6a0e1f3b9acc1 │ │ │ │ │ │ Displaying notes found in: .note.go.buildid │ │ │ Owner Data size Description │ │ │ - Go 0x00000053 GO BUILDID description data: 42 49 56 6f 41 61 39 67 43 50 4e 49 6e 37 70 49 55 2d 76 64 2f 5f 6b 4a 66 6e 31 37 68 6e 4b 42 65 42 66 62 6f 39 74 4d 4b 2f 59 39 66 41 33 4d 74 7a 69 66 56 71 4b 4a 42 42 68 78 7a 57 2f 42 50 73 44 75 79 76 55 49 4c 37 30 47 37 73 6e 67 6a 55 73 │ │ │ + Go 0x00000053 GO BUILDID description data: 50 44 71 65 63 37 36 71 30 4e 52 69 4b 36 69 57 63 31 73 52 2f 5f 6b 4a 66 6e 31 37 68 6e 4b 42 65 42 66 62 6f 39 74 4d 4b 2f 59 39 66 41 33 4d 74 7a 69 66 56 71 4b 4a 42 42 68 78 7a 57 2f 73 6a 72 50 70 62 38 39 32 41 4c 48 4e 62 6c 4d 72 75 4d 46 │ │ │ │ │ │ Displaying notes found in: .note.ABI-tag │ │ │ Owner Data size Description │ │ │ GNU 0x00000010 NT_GNU_ABI_TAG (ABI version tag) OS: Linux, ABI: 4.4.0 │ │ ├── strings --all --bytes=8 {} │ │ │ @@ -1,8 +1,8 @@ │ │ │ -BIVoAa9gCPNIn7pIU-vd/_kJfn17hnKBeBfbo9tMK/Y9fA3MtzifVqKJBBhxzW/BPsDuyvUIL70G7sngjUs │ │ │ +PDqec76q0NRiK6iWc1sR/_kJfn17hnKBeBfbo9tMK/Y9fA3MtzifVqKJBBhxzW/sjrPpb892ALHNblMruMF │ │ │ /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 │ │ │ __libc_start_main │ │ │ __cxa_finalize │ │ │ __vfprintf_chk │ │ │ sigfillset │ │ │ pthread_sigmask │ │ │ pthread_attr_init │ │ ├── readelf --wide --decompress --hex-dump=.gnu_debuglink {} │ │ │ @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@ │ │ │ │ │ │ Hex dump of section '.gnu_debuglink': │ │ │ - 0x00000000 73796674 2e646562 75670000 ca77ec4e syft.debug...w.N │ │ │ + 0x00000000 73796674 2e646562 75670000 6b0247ba syft.debug..k.G. ``` From what I understand both build IDs are hashes over other parts of the binary. Since they are the only difference though, the problem is likely in the debug symbols that get detached after the compile (and also after this hashing is done), but before diffoscope is executed on the final release artifact. Our guidelines for Go[3] mention the -trimpath option (which I forgot to add, but also wasn't necessary for repro-get), but since we have normalized paths in our build containers I'm not sure if the claim about Reproducible Builds applies to non-AUR packages? Using the data from reproducible.archlinux.org, there's currently 371 packages that depend on our Go package and have some kind of status attached to it: % rg -c GOOD resolved-go.txt 240 % rg -c BAD resolved-go.txt 131 Which is about ~65% In comparison, although many packages still use the `rustc --print` approach, our Rust build instructions essentially boil down to: ``` cargo fetch --locked --target host-tuple cargo build --frozen --release ``` Those two commands with no further manually set environment variables gets us: % rg -c GOOD resolved-rust.txt 669 % rg -c BAD resolved-rust.txt 86 Which is ~89% Although 20 percent-points doesn't seem like that much, it's a difference of "every 1 out of 3" vs "every 1 out of 10". Is there anything we can do to improve this overall situation? Both the amount of complexity necessary to compile a simple binary, as well as the reproducible build success ration? Maybe we could have something like /etc/makepkg.conf.d/rust.conf but for Go? cheers, kpcyrd [1]: https://archlinux.org/todo/rebuild-packages-signed-by-anatolik-morganamilo-… [2]: https://gitlab.archlinux.org/archlinux/packaging/packages/repro-get/-/blob/… [3]: https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Go_package_guidelines

2 5

RFC Final Comment Period: "buildbtw build service"
by Rafael Epplée 03 Feb '26

03 Feb '26

An RFC has now entered Final Comment Period. In 14 days, discussion will end and the proposal will either be accepted, rejected or withdrawn: https://gitlab.archlinux.org/archlinux/rfcs/-/merge_requests/63 Please visit the above link for discussion. Summary: """ This RFC proposes a first vertical slice of a build service to streamline rebuilding packages with many reverse dependencies. It tackles problems like repetitive manual work, blocking staging repositories, missed reverse dependencies and lack of shared context, like build logs. Goals include automating rebuilds and build ordering, enabling unattended builds, and providing isolated repos for parallel work. Builds run in secure virtual machines via a GitLab executor, organized into namespaces with histories and automatic dependency graphs. Interaction happens through CLI (pkgctl) and a web UI with SSO. """

1 1