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

[arch-dev-public] Signoff report for [testing]
by Arch Website Notification 02 Nov '12

02 Nov '12

=== Signoff report for [testing] === https://www.archlinux.org/packages/signoffs/ There are currently: * 4 new packages in last 24 hours * 0 known bad packages * 0 packages not accepting signoffs * 3 fully signed off packages * 5 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 (4 total) == * linux-3.6.5-1 (i686) * linux-lts-3.0.50-1 (i686) * linux-3.6.5-1 (x86_64) * linux-lts-3.0.50-1 (x86_64) == Incomplete signoffs for [core] (5 total) == * linux-3.6.5-1 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * linux-lts-3.0.50-1 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * lvm2-2.02.98-2 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * linux-lts-3.0.50-1 (x86_64) 1/2 signoffs * lvm2-2.02.98-2 (x86_64) 1/2 signoffs == Completed signoffs (3 total) == * libtirpc-0.2.2-4 (i686) * libtirpc-0.2.2-4 (x86_64) * linux-3.6.5-1 (x86_64) == Top five in signoffs in last 24 hours == 1. foutrelis - 4 signoffs 2. thomas - 2 signoffs

1 0

[arch-dev-public] libtirpc
by Tom Gundersen 01 Nov '12

01 Nov '12

Hi guys, This is just a note so I/we don't forget: When the next libtirpc release comes out we need to treat it as an soname bump and do a full rebuild. This is due to ABI being introduced in -rc1 and removed in -rc3 (we are currently on -rc2). This was discussed upstream, and the decision was to not bump the soname as the ABI break does not affect proper releases. Cheers, Tom

2 2

[arch-dev-public] Fwd: NetworkManager starts dhclient with a bad path to lease file
by Jan Steffens 01 Nov '12

01 Nov '12

Hey, should we change dhcp and dhclient to use /var/lib instead of /var/state? AFAICT it's the only package using the /var/state directory. Context below. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Daniel Isenmann <daniel.isenmann(a)gmx.de> Date: Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 10:01 PM Subject: Re: Fwd: NetworkManager starts dhclient with a bad path to lease file To: Jan Steffens <jan.steffens(a)gmail.com> Hi, some time ago this was reported as bug and I changed dhclient to use /var/state/ directory. Personally I don't care where the file is located. Feel free to change it in the dhclient package. At the moment I have no time because I moved to a new appartment. Cheers, Daniel On Thu, 2012-11-01 at 17:35 +0100, Jan Steffens wrote: > I just got this email. I wonder why dhcp/dhclient is using /var/state > instead of /var/lib. It's the only package on my system to do so. > > Should this be fixed in dhcp or NM? > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Stephen Drodge <stephen.drodge(a)gmail.com> > Date: Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 3:05 AM > Subject: NetworkManager starts dhclient with a bad path to lease file > To: "Jan Alexander Steffens (heftig)" <jan.steffens(a)gmail.com>, Jan de > Groot <jgc(a)archlinxu.org> > > > When NetworkManager starts dhclient it passes a command line argument > "-lf /var/lib/dhclient/dhclient*-*.lease" which tells dhclient to > place a lease file in /var/lib/dhclient. This directory does not exist > on my system (or indeed in the dhclient package). Lease files should > be placed instead in /var/state/dhclient. I have attached a trivial > patch to fix this. > > This is the first time I've submitted a patch, so please let me know > if I've gone about this the wrong way or if you want me to reformat > anything. I can also submit a patch to the abs package if you desire. > > I can also send this patch upstream if you think that it's appropriate > (I have found old bug reports of the same nature in launchpad so Arch > may not be the only distribution that suffers from this) > > Stephen Drodge

2 1

[arch-dev-public] Signoff report for [testing]
by Arch Website Notification 01 Nov '12

01 Nov '12

=== Signoff report for [testing] === https://www.archlinux.org/packages/signoffs/ There are currently: * 2 new packages in last 24 hours * 0 known bad packages * 0 packages not accepting signoffs * 2 fully signed off packages * 4 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 (2 total) == * lvm2-2.02.98-2 (i686) * lvm2-2.02.98-2 (x86_64) == Incomplete signoffs for [core] (4 total) == * libtirpc-0.2.2-4 (i686) 1/2 signoffs * lvm2-2.02.98-2 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * libtirpc-0.2.2-4 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * lvm2-2.02.98-2 (x86_64) 1/2 signoffs == Completed signoffs (2 total) == * procps-ng-3.3.5-1 (i686) * procps-ng-3.3.5-1 (x86_64) == Top five in signoffs in last 24 hours == 1. thomas - 2 signoffs 2. allan - 2 signoffs 3. lfleischer - 2 signoffs

1 0

[arch-dev-public] WARNING: changes to screen in testing
by Thomas Bächler 31 Oct '12

31 Oct '12

When you run with systemd's default tmpfiles configuration and you use screen, your screen sockets are deleted after 10 days. This is bad and caused me some trouble. I changed screen in testing to use /run/screens instead, which won't be cleared by tmpfiles - and it is the correct place for this stuff anyway. However, when upgrading the screen package, your existing screens will become unaccessible. How should we handle this?

3 4

[arch-dev-public] Signoff report for [testing]
by Arch Website Notification 31 Oct '12

31 Oct '12

=== Signoff report for [testing] === https://www.archlinux.org/packages/signoffs/ There are currently: * 6 new packages in last 24 hours * 0 known bad packages * 0 packages not accepting signoffs * 2 fully signed off packages * 6 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 (6 total) == * libtirpc-0.2.2-4 (i686) * procps-ng-3.3.5-1 (i686) * libtirpc-0.2.2-4 (x86_64) * procps-ng-3.3.5-1 (x86_64) * cairo-1.12.6-2 (i686) * cairo-1.12.6-2 (x86_64) == Incomplete signoffs for [core] (2 total) == * libtirpc-0.2.2-4 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * libtirpc-0.2.2-4 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs == Incomplete signoffs for [extra] (4 total) == * cairo-1.12.6-2 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * screen-4.0.3-14 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * cairo-1.12.6-2 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * screen-4.0.3-14 (x86_64) 1/2 signoffs == Completed signoffs (2 total) == * procps-ng-3.3.5-1 (i686) * procps-ng-3.3.5-1 (x86_64) == Top five in signoffs in last 24 hours == 1. andyrtr - 5 signoffs 2. dan - 4 signoffs 3. thomas - 3 signoffs 4. foutrelis - 2 signoffs 5. bisson - 2 signoffs

1 0

[arch-dev-public] Fixing xorg-xinit?
by Thomas Bächler 30 Oct '12

30 Oct '12

We get the discussion on IRC a lot: You need to have some special treatment for xinit/startx to work well with logind. According to Dave, this can be easily fixed. Shouldn't we fix this in our xorg-xinit package? I don't know exactly how though.

2 3

[arch-dev-public] libtirpc 0.2.2-3 in [testing] breaks pam
by Rémy Oudompheng 30 Oct '12

30 Oct '12

Hello, After upgrading to testing/libtrpc 0.2.2-3 I became unable to use sudo/su/login. Oct 30 23:41:10 mastermind login[27660]: PAM unable to dlopen(/usr/lib/security/pam_unix.so): /usr/lib/security/pam_unix.so: undefined symbol: log_debug Oct 30 23:41:10 mastermind login[27660]: PAM adding faulty module: /usr/lib/security/pam_unix.so Oct 30 23:41:10 mastermind login[27660]: FAILED LOGIN SESSION FROM tty3 FOR root, Module is unknown Downgrading to core/libtirpc solved the problem. I had to go into single user mode for that. Regards, Rémy.

4 3

[arch-dev-public] Unannounced mass edit of community PKGBUILDs
by Evangelos Foutras 30 Oct '12

30 Oct '12

I noticed that all of my community packages were modified by r78782 [1] (Full pkgdesc cleanup for 2339 packages). This was not discussed beforehand as it should. I would have been against it and we probably would have saved ourselves lots of unneeded noise in the repository. Besides the obtrusiveness of this commit, there were a couple more issues: - Indentation of pkgdesc inside package_*() functions was lost - Double quotes were changed to single quotes even though /usr/share/pacman/PKGBUILD.proto uses single quotes Whether or not it is a good idea to automatically try and correct slightly wrong package descriptions (in my opinion it's not worth it), the lack of communication is unacceptable. I went ahead and reversed the changes moments ago so the whole thing is now a noop. Please let's not do this again. :) [1] https://projects.archlinux.org/svntogit/community.git/commit/?id=9f040fd30a…

10 18

[arch-dev-public] Moving CK-removal + GNOME 3.6? Announcement draft.
by Thomas Bächler 30 Oct '12

30 Oct '12

Can we move this stuff please? Here's a draft for a short announcement. "GNOME, networkmanager and polkit now require systemd GNOME 3.6 has been moved to extra, along with new polkit and networkmanager. At the same time, consolekit support has been removed from polkit and networkmanager. This means that everyone who uses GNOME or networkmanager or relies on polkit needs to boot with systemd. To save some ressources, you should also remove consolekit from your systems." Hm, I'm not satisfied, many people don't know if and why they use polkit. Anyway, it's a draft.

4 6