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

[arch-dev-public] Problem with gstreamer in testing
by Jason Chu 10 Apr '08

10 Apr '08

It seems that gstreamer is still tagged for testing even though the packages aren't in there. I know they're JGC's packages but I just wanted to make sure that they're supposed to be out of testing before fixing up svn and the testing db.

2 2

[arch-dev-public] ArchISO FTP Installer - Round 2
by Simo Leone 10 Apr '08

10 Apr '08

First off, thanks for the feedback last week. Most of the issues were minor and not-too-technical, so they weren't too tricky to iron out. Another batch of images has been generated with suggested improvements, they can be found at: http://dev.archlinux.org/~simo/archiso_tests/installer/ This time, there are ISO and USB images for both architectures. Once again, I'm looking for testers. So if you have some time to kill, please give 'em a spin and let us know how it goes. Generally speaking the live system should be able to: a) boot and b) connect to a network. If for some reason you can't get it to do one of those, I'm especially interested in hearing about it. If no major issues can be identified with these, the next batch will be a full-blown core-ftp-i686-x86_64-usb-iso release. Early and Often, as they say. Thanks for your help! -- Simo Leone Archlinux Developer PS: For the interested, changelogs and code repos: http://code.neotuli.net/gitweb/?p=archiso.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/ftp-i… http://projects.archlinux.org/git/?p=archiso.git;a=summary

6 20

[arch-dev-public] updated testing2extra
by Pierre Schmitz 10 Apr '08

10 Apr '08

Hi all, I have made a first proposal how testing2extra might work with the new svn repo layout. I did not try it because it might break everything. So please have a look. I am not sure if we should use svnmerge to move stuff from testing to extra or if it's better to just use rm and mv. And I need to add a check which should prevent us from moving packages into the wrong repo by accident. Pierre PS: I also attached the script to this mail. -- archlinux.de

2 3

[arch-dev-public] [signoff] glib2 2.16.3-1
by Jan de Groot 10 Apr '08

10 Apr '08

Another new version of glib2, please signoff for both architectures. Changelog: Overview of Changes from GLib 2.16.2 to GLib 2.16.3 =================================================== * Update the Unicode support to 5.1.0 * Bug fixes: 524314 g_convert() on Win32 implicitly converts full width alpha... 448943 g_timeout_add_seconds() problems 525972 UCS-4 not in the new win_iconv implementation 526619 make test-report crash 491554 Update to Unicode 5.1.0 525866 the user directory should not be considered as a mount... 526796 Wrong order of arguments in g_file_copy's fallback * Translation updates: Czech (cs)

2 1

[arch-dev-public] how to call svn based devtools within a i686 (core) chroot
by Andreas Radke 08 Apr '08

08 Apr '08

i keep several chroots alive: core, core/testing, extra, extra/testing. and that twice for each architecture. calling devtools archrelease foo-$CARCH works well for extra and extra/testing also in i686 (linux32) chroots. but how to deal with core chroots? for x86_64 i can run archrelease from outside the chroot. but this won't work for i686. so far i had manually tagged and scp'ed the pkg. how to to this now? moving all subversion related dependencies to core/devel could solve it that are not only a few packages, so it would blow up core a bit too much i think. any idea? btw: how's other devs experience with mkarchroot? is the creation trivial for x86_64 and linux32 i686 chroots? how do you keep the chroot empty or do create each time a new one? is there any advantage beside disc space over permanent chroots? -Andy

3 3

[arch-dev-public] Request for help: 32bit chroot handling in makechrootpkg
by Aaron Griffin 08 Apr '08

08 Apr '08

So I looked at this for about 5 minutes... and broke things. I have a 32bit chroot on my 64bit box, but cannot seem to work a call to "linux32" in properly. I am hoping that someone with more experience could look into this. I do know that "linux32 chroot /var/archroot32 /bin/bash" works find... but doing the same thing (linux32 chroot <path> <script>) in makechrootpkg tosses some ELIBBAD at me... So I gave up. If someone would mind giving me a hand, that'd be great. It would give the 64bit build machine the opportunity to work for i686 as well (for those out there with only 64bit hardware). Thanks in advance, Aaron

4 4

[arch-dev-public] initscripts changes
by Thomas Bächler 07 Apr '08

07 Apr '08

I am hacking initscripts and can't quite decide on two issues: 1) I'd like to hardcode /dev/pts/ mounting in rc.sysinit. 2) I'd like to remove the (hardcoded) line /usr/bin/setterm -blank 15 from rc.sysinit. Can I get opinions on these?

3 3

Re: [arch-dev-public] [arch-general] initscripts changes
by Jan de Groot 07 Apr '08

07 Apr '08

On Mon, 2008-04-07 at 00:24 +0200, RedShift wrote: > Thomas Bächler wrote: > > RedShift schrieb: > >> Thomas Bächler wrote: > >>> I am hacking initscripts and can't quite decide on two issues: > >>> > >>> 1) I'd like to hardcode /dev/pts/ mounting in rc.sysinit. > >> > >> What's wrong with putting that in fstab? What if I don't want to have > >> that mounted? So instead of modified fstab I'd have to mess with > >> rc.sysinit everytime the initscripts get upgraded? This is the same > >> discussion as with moving lo to rc.sysinit instead of leaving it in > >> rc.conf. Uterly pointless. > > > > The point is, everyone needs it mounted. Your system will be completely > > useless without devpts (as it is without the lo interface). > > > > However, I know your opinion on these issues. Are there any rational > > reasons not to hardcode devpts? > > > > Yes. It's not logical. fstab was made for mounting filesystems, why even consider moving it to rc.sysinit? It's not because it makes the system unusable without it, that it should be moved to rc.sysinit. Why the change anyway? What's the benefit? Now we're going to see "Heeey stuff's being mounted that's not in fstab? wtf?". This change is just plain irrational, fstab was _specifically made_ for mounting filesystems. If you're going to hardcode stuff like that you might as well throw away fstab. > > Glenn /proc and /sys are already hardcoded. About your system being broken without these filesystems mounted: - SSH (both server and client) won't work without devpts mounted - None of the virtual X terminal things will work without devpts mounted One sidenote though: I don't think users will break their system, the /dev/shm and /dev/pts mounts are in fstab during setup and I think most people don't remove them. I haven't seen bugs about "hey my system doesn't boot, but when I add these lines to /etc/fstab it works"

1 0

[arch-dev-public] some packages in extra depends on testing
by Roman Kyrylych 06 Apr '08

06 Apr '08

Hi! I want to bring everyone's attention to this issue because there are 2 bugreports already about this. Some packages in extra require packages from testing with depends=(... foobar>=version-from-testing ...) This situation should not happen. Please either don't update package until its dependencies move to extra, or don't forget to move dependencies when nothing holds them in testing. Thank you. -- Roman Kyrylych (Роман Кирилич)

3 2

[arch-dev-public] kernel26 patch git repository
by Thomas Bächler 05 Apr '08

05 Apr '08

As some of you have noticed, I moved all the stuff we do in the -ARCH kernel into a separate patch to make the PKGBUILD slimmer. Now I finally set up a generation script for the patch (which is in an early state, doesn't do much error handling, but works) which will probably grow and become more sophisticated over time. I set the script and the patches up in http://projects.archlinux.org/git/?p=linux-2.6-ARCH.git;a=summary However, I need someone with root to run groupadd linux-2.6-ARCH-git (is that even a valid group name?) chown -R thomas:linux-2.6-ARCH-git path/to/repo I did the rest of the steps listed in repo-setup.txt, so after that the repository should be fine. I will start preparing 2.6.25 soon (maybe even today), but I want to clean up the patch. If anybody has opinions about any of the patches currently included, please post them here. You can go through the PATCHCFG file in the repository and comment on the ones you like or dislike.

3 4