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

[arch-dev-public] hwd-5.3
by Damir Perisa 10 Dec '07

10 Dec '07

Sunday 09 December 2007, you wrote: | Hi Damir, | | 11-Dec-2007, version 5.3 | - touchpad detect | - expert mode sorting and fixing | - simple mode multi hw detect | | http://user-contributions.org/projects/hwd/hwd.html | | Markku updated for x86_64, tested, commited. @devs: since i do not know when i will be able to do the i686 (probably somewhen this week), please any dev to see this, build hwd 5.3 for me for i686. thanx - D -- .·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·.¸¸.·´ ° ° ° ° ° ° ><((((º> ° ° ° ° ° <º)))>< <º)))><

2 2

[arch-dev-public] moving diffutils to core/base
by Andreas Radke 10 Dec '07

10 Dec '07

http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/8802 grub depends on diffutils. i want to move diffutils from core/devel to core/base to get grub working without anything outside base. any concerns? -Andy

4 5

Re: [arch-dev-public] [aur-general] Old version of gnome-system-tools in [unstable]
by Roman Kyrylych 10 Dec '07

10 Dec '07

2007/11/30, Roman Kyrylych <roman.kyrylych(a)gmail.com>: > 2007/11/30, Hugo Doria <hugodoria(a)gmail.com>: > > Hi, > > > > There is a very old version of gnome-system-tools (and > > system-tools-backends) package in [unstable]. A newer one is already > > available in [community]. > > > > Would it not be better to remove the older one? What would be the procedure > > to do that? I tried to contact the packager but i got no response so far. > > > > I've just said about this in arch-dev-public ML today (in a repo > cleanup thread). ...and now I've removed them. Please someone build gnome-system-tools, system-tools-backends and liboobs for x86_64. -- Roman Kyrylych (Роман Кирилич)

1 0

[arch-dev-public] rebuilt mplayer
by Jason Chu 10 Dec '07

10 Dec '07

After the x264 update mplayer needed updating. I rebuilt it and put it into testing. Does anyone know why this took so long...? Jason

2 1

[arch-dev-public] glib2 status
by Eric Belanger 07 Dec '07

07 Dec '07

Hi, Currently, on x86_64, glib2 is in the core repo and is at version 2.14.4-1. However, on i686, we have glib2 2.14.2-2 in extra and glib2 2.14.3-1 in testing. Does anyone know why the core move hasn't been done on i686 yet? I believe it had enough sign-offs. Is it an oversight? Also, why the glib2 in x86_64 core is more up-to-date than the i686 testing one? There was no sign-off thread for glib2 2.14.4-1. Is it more up-to-date on x86_64 because gtk2 and associated packages are more up-to-date on x86_64? Eric -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.

3 2

[arch-dev-public] [signoff] ndiswrapper / utils bump to 1.50
by Tobias Powalowski 07 Dec '07

07 Dec '07

Hi please signoff new ndiswrapper and utils, for both arches greetings tpowa -- Tobias Powalowski Archlinux Developer & Package Maintainer (tpowa) http://www.archlinux.org tpowa(a)archlinux.org

2 2

Re: [arch-dev-public] [signoff] madwifi/madwifi-utils svn version 3006
by Aaron Griffin 07 Dec '07

07 Dec '07

On Dec 7, 2007 12:19 AM, Tobias Powalowski <t.powa(a)gmx.de> wrote: > 686 signoff is missing I'll sign off, blame me if it's broken 8)

1 0

[arch-dev-public] Core maintainers
by Aaron Griffin 06 Dec '07

06 Dec '07

Hey guys, I just wanted to bring this up. It's not a huge deal, but it kinda bugs me. When we did the core move, I lost a ton of packages that are now in core. It appears that no one kept track of the maintainers when we moved from current -> core, and I lost some packages that I actually valued quite a bit. Now, again, it's not a huge deal, but I noticed a lot of complaints regarding core orphans at first, when it would have been much easier to just keep track of the old maintainers. So, that said, if anyone has core packages they either don't think are important, or don't care enough about, let me know, because I apparently have like 2 or 3 core packages only. Thanks, Aaron

2 2

[arch-dev-public] Adding silly to extra
by Eric Belanger 06 Dec '07

06 Dec '07

Hi, I would like to add silly to extra (it's currently in unsupported). To make smc work on x86_64, the cegui package will need to be rebuilt with the silly image codec enabled. That will close FS#8469. Any objections? Thanks, Eric -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.

2 1

[arch-dev-public] Moving libol to core
by Eric Belanger 06 Dec '07

06 Dec '07

Hi, I would like to move libol from extra to core/lib. The only package that depends on it (as a makedepends) in the repo is eventlog which is in core. It would make more sense to have libol in core along with eventlog. Any objections? Eric -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.

5 7