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

[arch-dev-public] Arch64 micro-build machine
by Aaron Griffin 14 Nov '07

14 Nov '07

Hey guys, This is an email for you people with i686 machines only. I've setup a x86_64 machine at home for anyone to use in building x86_64 packages. This means that, most likely, we won't be able to test them just yet, but at least we can build them and help the x86_64 guys out. So I've setup 2 user accounts already, if anyone would like one, let me know. By the way, I have a decent connection as well, so for those of you with slower connections that want to abuse mine, feel free - just know that I may throttle the machine if it gets annoying 8) In the near future, simo is going to get pacbuild up and running here, so be prepared for that. Hooray

5 8

[arch-dev-public] [signoff] perl
by K. Piche 14 Nov '07

14 Nov '07

Updated perl to fix CVE-2007-5116 perl regular expression UTF parsing errors. -- K. Piche <kpiche(a)rogers.com>

3 2

[arch-dev-public] [signoff] mdadm
by Tobias Powalowski 14 Nov '07

14 Nov '07

Hi update to new version, please signoff greetings tpowa -- Tobias Powalowski Archlinux Developer & Package Maintainer (tpowa) http://www.archlinux.org tpowa(a)archlinux.org

2 2

[arch-dev-public] vi vim gvim update, please signoff
by Tobias Kieslich 14 Nov '07

14 Nov '07

Hi, i bumped vi vim and gvim to get around an error, the current build had some missing symlinks. put to testing because vi is core although the update is pretty straight forward. TPowa, can you try building on your machine and see if vi produces the manpage symlinks rvi.1.gz --> vi1.gz? The former package came from your machine. I just wanna track down if there is an error in the PKGBUILD that doesn't get caught on my boxes. Thanks, -T

4 3

[arch-dev-public] [signoff] libarchive
by Dan McGee 14 Nov '07

14 Nov '07

I version bumped libarchive from 2.2.X to 2.4.0 today, and would appreciate a bit of testing before I move it to core. Best test cases are: * use bsdtar to extract and create some archives * use pacman Can someone also rebuild this for x86_64 and then we can get signoffs for both architectures? -Dan

4 3

[arch-dev-public] [signoff] mkinitcpio 0.5.17-1
by Thomas Bächler 14 Nov '07

14 Nov '07

I fixed one old bug and updated the manpage. Tested and running on x86_64.

3 2

[arch-dev-public] [signoff] kernel26 2.6.23.1-8 and binary modules rebuilt
by Tobias Powalowski 14 Nov '07

14 Nov '07

Hi kernel 2.6.23.1 for both arches in testing, please signoff this one adresses these bugs: http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/7135 http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/8449 http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/8500 http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/8549 - updated mactel patch - updated alsa - updated unionfs - updated squashfs - added TIMER_STATS option -> all binary modules rebuilt against that - added undervolting patch - added more stable-tree patches greetings tpowa -- Tobias Powalowski Archlinux Developer & Package Maintainer (tpowa) http://www.archlinux.org tpowa(a)archlinux.org

4 5

[arch-dev-public] Plan for third removal candidates list
by Eric Belanger 14 Nov '07

14 Nov '07

Hi, I just posted the second list of removal candidates. There will be a third and possibly final removal candidates list. Please check https://www.archlinux.org/wiki/Repo%20Cleanup/ to add comments to packages that haven't been commented yet. As I'm unfamiliar to the remaing stuff and there isn't much interest in checking the wiki list, I plan to submit them to the list (after discussion and removal of the second list) for removal even if they have no comments. If you think it would be useful for discussion, I could add in the package description to replace the reason. How does that sound? Eric -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.

1 0

[arch-dev-public] Improving/Simplifying Kernel PKGBUILD
by James Rayner 13 Nov '07

13 Nov '07

Some people liked this idea... http://cvs.archlinux.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/base/kernel26/PKGBUILD?rev=1.2… - We could put the patches into a patchset. tpowa has expressed dislike for this idea before, though it actually makes it easier to maintain. It'd allow the documentation to be moved out of the PKGBUILD, make the patches more accessible and the PKGBUILD cleaner. The only other things I can think of have alarm bells and are covered in red paint. Any other ideas? James

4 4

[arch-dev-public] Kernel - vanilla vs patched?
by Tom K 13 Nov '07

13 Nov '07

Well, this kicked itself off in IRC this morning (timezone GMT+1), and as it seems most people didn't see it and/or didn't participate, we should probably do it here. Here's the question, as I see it - what do we patch kernel26 for? Bugfixes? Stability? Enhancements? New features? Other? Specific case under discussion: http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/8500 - a request, from a single user so far, for a new feature in the kernel. We also have, or had, a request for fbsplash (closed, of course) and there are probably others - Romashka? My understanding of The Arch Way, as it applies here, is that we patch for bugfixes e.g. ipw2x00, and for enhancements to existing functionality e.g. alsa. In the referenced bug report, there are differing dev views expressed - as I'm posting this, I'll include my view, which is that we should not add new features to kernel26. I'll also include a possible compromise: /me grabs big can of worms, opens it, pours it out onto DevLand :) Two kernels - a strictly as-vanilla-as-possible kernel26 in Core, and a more let's-try-new-features-here kernel26extra in Extra. It could be in Community either, but I would see it as an official Arch package, supported by the dev team. I would be happy to maintain it if necessary, along with the usual array of external module packages - in cooperation, of course, with the current kernel maintainers. Right now, anyone who has read the IRC log knows how Tobias P and Aaron feel about it, but I expect others have views on this topic too, so let's hear them. Regards Tom.

14 34