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

[arch-dev-public] Offline for uncertain time.
by Tobias Powalowski 27 Mar '08

27 Mar '08

Hi Life changed here recently, new full time job starts, marrying and such stuff. Feel free to update any of my adopted packages, or just orphan them that someone else can take care of them. Cya guys, greetings tpowa -- Tobias Powalowski Archlinux Developer & Package Maintainer (tpowa) http://www.archlinux.org tpowa(a)archlinux.org

5 5

[arch-dev-public] Postgres 6.3 todos
by Paul Mattal 27 Mar '08

27 Mar '08

So much time has passed since this list went up (almost 2 months) that there's some chance some of these have been rebuilt already but not updated on the list! Could responsible parties have a look? If you want me to rebuild these for you, just let me know. - P https://dev.archlinux.org/todo/48/

3 2

[arch-dev-public] Warning on php-apc update
by Pierre Schmitz 26 Mar '08

26 Mar '08

Dear PHP user, the update from php-apc to Version 3.0.17 includes a security fix: http://nvd.nist.gov/nvd.cfm?cvename=CVE-2008-1488 But it seems that the other changes of that new version are introducing several problems which will cause php to crash. It seems to be quite random but I have seen phpMyAdmin triggering those crashes a lot. I would recommend to disable APC until this is fixed. My current plan is to downgrade APC to 3.0.16 again and try to backport the security patch only. Greetings, Pierre PS: this bug-report seems to be related: http://pecl.php.net/bugs/bug.php?id=13505 -- archlinux.de

2 4

[arch-dev-public] kernel26 unionfs/aufs conflict
by Simo Leone 26 Mar '08

26 Mar '08

Hey guys, The unionfs patch in our kernel right now is old, and suffers from a few pretty bad bugs that cause frequent kernel panics. Anyhow, there's a new version at http://download.filesystems.org/unionfs/unionfs-2.x/unionfs-2.3.1_for_2.6.2… which works fine. However, it looks like it directly conflicts with the splice patch needed for aufs. Both unionfs and the aufs patch export a couple functions for modules to use in splice.c, and they happen to export them as different function names, hence the conflict. I'd argue that the unionfs patch does it "more correctly" given that it prefixes the function names with vfs_, where the aufs patch simply exports them as-is (there goes the namespace. ick.). Now, we can work around this with a dirty little hack that just exports both names, and has one simply call/return the other. Another alternative is to let unionfs do it their way, and patch our out-of-tree aufs module accordingly, which isn't a whole lot cleaner. The last option is to drop either aufs or unionfs, which isn't exactly desirable either... although they do provide similar functionality. Anyhow, I need some opinions here, and it's ultimately up to the kernel maintainers. I'm willing to write patches for options 1 or 2 if that's how you want to do it. As an aside, I'm going to read up on it and figure out who really does it the "right" way and let the other project know about it. -S

5 6

[arch-dev-public] List of packages with no license information in core, extra
by Aaron Griffin 26 Mar '08

26 Mar '08

Forwarding from aur-general (Thanks!). I removed the community packages list too. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Ronald van Haren <pressh(a)gmail.com> Date: Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 3:52 AM Subject: [aur-general] List of packages with no license information in core, extra and community To: "Discussion about the Arch User Repository (AUR)" <aur-general(a)archlinux.org>, arch-dev-public(a)archlinux.org Hi all, I just came across some package in extra and noticed it had no license information at all in the PKGBUILD (though the package is not even gpl). So I got the idea of checking if more packages had this problem and came up with a list of the core, extra and community repositories (it should be easy to run the script for unstable and testing too if required). Please all take a look at the list and fix the packages. It really are too much packages without license information! Respective bug reports can be found for core & extra: http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/9971 community: http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/9970 I also attached the lists to this mail. Regards, Ronald

5 7

[arch-dev-public] [signoff] kernel26-2.6.24.3-6
by Tobias Powalowski 26 Mar '08

26 Mar '08

Hi kernel bump release for both arches in testing, please signoff added atheros l2 network adapter support (used in eee pcs) added some additional headers for dvb module building http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/9912 greetings tpowa -- Tobias Powalowski Archlinux Developer & Package Maintainer (tpowa) http://www.archlinux.org tpowa(a)archlinux.org

7 14

Re: [arch-dev-public] [arch-general] signoff kernel26-2.6.24.3-6
by Jan de Groot 26 Mar '08

26 Mar '08

> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: arch-general-bounces(a)archlinux.org [mailto:arch-general- > bounces(a)archlinux.org] Namens Aaron Griffin > Verzonden: woensdag 26 maart 2008 0:37 > Aan: General Discusson about Arch Linux > Onderwerp: Re: [arch-general] signoff kernel26-2.6.24.3-6 > > On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 2:07 PM, Arvid Ephraim Picciani > <aep(a)ibcsolutions.de> wrote: > > i believe archlinux is lost and i stopped fighting for it. It's > exhausting to > > fight against argumentation like "but other distros do the same". > those > > people just didnt get the point and should be kicked out of arch > directly. > > You argue that those people actually contribute too much to kick > them out? > > Look. they just contribute things that we don't want. We don't want > > downstream patches. We don't want automatic scripts (except udev, it > damn > > rocks, thanks for that). We don't want downstream split packages. > You could > > safe hundrets of hours by just not doing that. > > I am a strong believer that this entire paragraph was constructed by > typing "win" over and over. > If patching is no longer allowed, get ready for a time where packages are stuck in testing for ages because upstream broke it. Get ready to run a distro that breaks your system on every pacman -Syu because upgrade paths are not handled. Yes, this is win win win I guess. If we want to go this way, I consider myself as ex-developer and switch to another distribution or operating system that just works and gives me the power to do things the right way. Instead of building packages for people that tell me I'm doing the wrong thing, I'll do upstream software development, in this case GNOME.

1 0

[arch-dev-public] [signoff] mkinitcpio 0.5.18
by Thomas Bächler 26 Mar '08

26 Mar '08

The only change to 0.5.18pre2 is the fixed resume hook.

3 2

[arch-dev-public] [signoff] glibc 2.7-9
by Jan de Groot 26 Mar '08

26 Mar '08

During the update to glibc 2.7-8, a patch was added from upstream CVS that breaks makecontext/getcontext calls. This causes segfaults in some applications, wvstreams is an example of this. 2.7-9 contains an updated patch that fixes this issue. Please signoff. Bug fixed: http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/9917

3 2

[arch-dev-public] MythTV & Extras
by Travis Willard 25 Mar '08

25 Mar '08

Hi everrrrrrybooooooooody! (Hi Dr. Nick!) Is anyone out there in dev-land interested in MythTV setups? I've got a ton of MythTV packages I'm maintaining (plugins and themes) that are kind of legacy from my TU days, which I brought into community with a ton of votes and eventually came to Extra when I became a dev. I don't use Myth, and can't really test any of these packages - basically I'm looking for someone who's actually interested in Myth to take them on. Paul has said he's looking at dropping the actual MythTV package, so if anyone out there is interested, taking the whole set (Myth + Plugins + Themes) would probably be easiest, since they all kind of update in unison. I'm cc-ing this message to aur-general too, because if no dev is interested, then perhaps a TU would be keen on keeping them in community. They seem to be a decently popular set of packages, so I'd love it if someone could pick them up. Thanks! -- Travis

4 6