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

Re: [arch-dev-public] amarok2 and mysql
by Jan de Groot 23 Mar '09

23 Mar '09

On Mon, 2009-03-23 at 17:01 +1000, Allan McRae wrote: > Tobias Powalowski wrote: > > Hi > > i tried to build amarok2 this weekend and it's a real hassle to get it > > compiled, qt needs to be rebuilt with an other patch, 2 depends need to be > > added and mysql needs to be built with -fPIC option to get it build correct. > > I prepared everything and amarok2 runs fine now. > > > > Are there any mysql experts who can tell me if this hurts existing databases? > > Thanks for your answers. > > > > Wasn't there concerns about a performance hit in mysql when compiled > with -fPIC? Does the whole MySQL require recompiling with -fPIC, or is libmysqlclient enough?

1 0

[arch-dev-public] [signoff] xinetd-2.3.14-4
by Allan McRae 23 Mar '09

23 Mar '09

License rebuild only. Allan

2 2

[arch-dev-public] [signoff] isdn4k-utils-3.2p1-4
by Allan McRae 22 Mar '09

22 Mar '09

Licence rebuild only Allan

2 1

[arch-dev-public] Extra signoffs (wiki page)
by Hugo Doria 22 Mar '09

22 Mar '09

Hi guys, I created a wiki page about [extra] packages going to [testing]. This will avoid some more confusions (see the thread about deluge signoff): http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/DeveloperWiki:ExtraSignoffs What you guys think? Anything to change/add? -- Hugo

2 1

[arch-dev-public] Bug Day - Saturday 21st March
by Allan McRae 21 Mar '09

21 Mar '09

On Saturday the 21st of March we will be holding a bug day to combat the ever increasing number of reports in our bug tracker. We will clear outdated reports, fix/implement those that already have patches provided or are trivial to fix/implement and discuss the pros and cons of implementing some feature requests. A rough TODO list that you can add to is on the wiki (http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Bug_Day_TODO). Please join us in #archlinux-bugs on irc.freenode.net during the 21st of March. We live in many different timezones, so hopefully a dev will be present at all times during the day. Allan

4 5

[arch-dev-public] Integrity Check x86_64 20-03-2009
by repomaint＠archlinux.org 20 Mar '09

20 Mar '09

======================================== = Integrity Check x86_64 of core,extra = ======================================== Performing integrity checks... ==> parsing pkgbuilds ==> checking mismatches ==> checking archs ==> checking dependencies ==> checking makedepends ==> checking for circular dependencies Missing Dependencies ---------------------- archboot --> 'netkit-telnet>=0.17-8' archboot --> 'wlan-ng26>=0.2.9-2' archboot --> 'atl2>=2.0.5-2' Missing Makedepends --------------------- wpa_supplicant --> 'kernel26<2.6.28' gnome-speech --> 'espeak' Repo Hierarchy for Makedepends -------------------------------- core/sqlite3 depends on extra/tcl core/crda depends on extra/python-m2crypto core/iputils depends on extra/opensp core/iputils depends on extra/libxslt core/iputils depends on extra/docbook-xsl core/madwifi-utils depends on extra/sharutils core/e2fsprogs depends on extra/bc core/ca-certificates depends on extra/ruby core/madwifi depends on extra/sharutils Circular Dependencies ----------------------- gcc-gcj>eclipse-ecj>gcc-gcj Summary --------- Missing PKGBUILDs: 0 Invalid PKGBUILDs: 0 Mismatching PKGBUILD names: 0 Duplicate PKGBUILDs: 0 Invalid archs: 0 Missing (make)dependencies: 5 Repo hierarchy problems: 9 Circular dependencies: 1

1 0

[arch-dev-public] Integrity Check i686 20-03-2009
by repomaint＠archlinux.org 20 Mar '09

20 Mar '09

====================================== = Integrity Check i686 of core,extra = ====================================== Performing integrity checks... ==> parsing pkgbuilds ==> checking mismatches ==> checking archs ==> checking dependencies ==> checking makedepends ==> checking for circular dependencies Missing Dependencies ---------------------- archboot --> 'netkit-telnet>=0.17-8' archboot --> 'wlan-ng26>=0.2.9-2' archboot --> 'atl2>=2.0.5-2' Missing Makedepends --------------------- wpa_supplicant --> 'kernel26<2.6.28' gnome-speech --> 'espeak' Repo Hierarchy for Makedepends -------------------------------- core/sqlite3 depends on extra/tcl core/crda depends on extra/python-m2crypto core/iputils depends on extra/opensp core/iputils depends on extra/libxslt core/iputils depends on extra/docbook-xsl core/madwifi-utils depends on extra/sharutils core/e2fsprogs depends on extra/bc core/ca-certificates depends on extra/ruby core/madwifi depends on extra/sharutils Circular Dependencies ----------------------- gcc-gcj>eclipse-ecj>gcc-gcj Summary --------- Missing PKGBUILDs: 0 Invalid PKGBUILDs: 0 Mismatching PKGBUILD names: 0 Duplicate PKGBUILDs: 0 Invalid archs: 0 Missing (make)dependencies: 5 Repo hierarchy problems: 9 Circular dependencies: 1

1 0

[arch-dev-public] Adding static fuse devnode?
by Jan de Groot 20 Mar '09

20 Mar '09

Would it be possible to add a static fuse device node? At this moment we have this very ugly text in gvfs post_install: ==> GVFS requires FUSE to operate correctly ==> To make full use of GVFS, please load the "fuse" kernel module at bootup. ==> To do so, add 'fuse' to the MODULES array in /etc/rc.conf ==> ==> Without this module, GVFS will not be compatible with applications that ==> are not GIO-enabled. ==> Creating the /dev/fuse devicenode by default means the kernel will autoload it when needed. Is this wanted behaviour, and can we abuse udev's new static /dev support for this?

2 2

[arch-dev-public] Scim and arphic fonts update in [testing]
by Eric Bélanger 19 Mar '09

19 Mar '09

Hi all, I've just updated several scim-related packages. They are in the [testing] repo. The updated packages are: anthy libchewing libhangul scim scim-anthy scim-chewing scim-tables uim scim-uim (no update, just rebuild against uim 1.5.5) As I don't use these packages (I believe no dev use them either), I could only do minimal testing. It would be nice if users of these packages test them and report if they work properly or if there are problems with them. I've also updated (in [testing] repo) the Arphic fonts: ttf-arphic-ukai and ttf-arphic-uming There are two points about these fonts: 1. According to upstream: "This release contains Firefly's Bitmap fonts. The Bitmap fonts are available for 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 pixel and currently cover Big5 and GB2312. HKSCS is currently not supported as there are many more characters missing. So, for Big5 and GB2312 characters the bitmap glyphs should improve the rendering, but for all other characters, the rendering is the same like without bitmap glyphs." I might be nice to get comments about someone using these fonts to see if the ttf-fireflysung package is indeed no longer needed (http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/8951). 2. The updated ttf-arphic-* packages in testing provide the fonts as a TrueType Collection, i.e. the fonts come in 4 flavors (CN, HK, TW and TW MBE), with different glyph shapes according to the preferred shapes in each region (more info here: http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/CJKUnifonts/Download). As a result TeX users will encounter trouble using this font. The following programs/libraries are known to not fully support TTC files and can usually only use the first fontface of the TTC: - jdk and openjdk6 - imlib2 and applications which use imlib2. Again, I and probably none of the devs don't use these fonts so feedback from users would be nice. Eric

2 5

[arch-dev-public] Move the catalyst drivers from extra to AUR/Community
by Eduardo Romero 19 Mar '09

19 Mar '09

Here it is, Andreas Radke and I have talked about this and have come to a conclusion. The ATI catalyst drivers are in a pitiful state and AMD is doing close to nothing to improve the situation, they just take Linux as a joke. At least, that is the impression one gets when nvidia releases great drivers for Linux and ATI in the other hand is not showing any promises in making their drivers better and well supported. In the other hand the radeonhd driver, which is in extra shows some promise, and so far have been good, they have been able to make a good driver with only some documentation released by AMD, when AMD can't make one while being the makers, go figure out. This situation is worse in the x86_64 system, we have been stuck with catalyst 8.12 while i686 has 9.2 already, because AMD just wanted to break things at will, because their approach is very strange, break some things to improve others. That is why, we hope for a TU who can bring this drivers to community to raise his hand and help us with this task. Please, if you want to give catalyst the love they don't deserve but need, do not hesitate to offer yourself as the new maintainer. In the worse case scenario where no one raises his hand, the package should be moved to AUR. I personally would not want this, so please TUs respond. A TU will be able to do what is required for the best with this drivers, which includes making 9.2 and later work with x86_64. What do the other developers think? Any developer that wants to take care of them? PS: I do use this drivers, so I do care about them, but this is a choice that had to be made. Thanks, Eduardo "kensai" Romero

9 23