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

[arch-dev-public] kernel 2.6.23 move to core on weekend?
by Tobias Powalowski 18 Oct '07

18 Oct '07

Hi there are no real showstoppers on bugtracker, i add now the packages for signoff, for wlan-ng we have no dev that can test and no user for reporting the functionality. should it be removed form core to extra? the extra modules noone responded to the last thread is this a problem? (especially the fglrx driver) greetings tpowa -- Tobias Powalowski Archlinux Developer & Package Maintainer (tpowa) http://www.archlinux.org tpowa(a)archlinux.org

2 1

[arch-dev-public] [signoff] sdparm
by Tobias Powalowski 18 Oct '07

18 Oct '07

Hi i put new sdparm for both arches to testing, please signoff greetings tpowa -- Tobias Powalowski Archlinux Developer & Package Maintainer (tpowa) http://www.archlinux.org tpowa(a)archlinux.org

3 3

[arch-dev-public] [signoff] pam
by Tobias Powalowski 18 Oct '07

18 Oct '07

Hi i put new pam for both arches to testing, please signoff greetings tpowa -- Tobias Powalowski Archlinux Developer & Package Maintainer (tpowa) http://www.archlinux.org tpowa(a)archlinux.org

3 3

[arch-dev-public] Arch Linux Logo Contest - RULES
by Travis Willard 17 Oct '07

17 Oct '07

Hey again! Okay, the consensus seems to be that having a logo competition is a good idea, so we're having a competition! The forum thread I linked in the other ML thread[1] has been teeming with activity, and many proposals have already been submitted before we've even done anything[2]! I have a feeling this will turn out quite nicely. I'm starting a new thread to keep things organized. This thread is now for discussion of the rules of the logo contest. I propose simple rules: . Anyone can submit as many concepts as they wish . Entry is freeform, no need to base it on current logo . All submitted entries must be under a freely-modifiable license, or be willing to transfer rights of the logo to Arch. Per submission, we want: . SVG or PNG logo at 128x128 . Palette used (16 colours max) . Simplified 2-colour version (b&w, for instance) . Scaled version(s) (16x16 required, anything between 128x128 and 16x16 also cool) Foxbunny, from the forums, made a proposed submission sheet[3] and gave an example submission[4] - do we want to make use of these? As they currently are, or with some modification? Please comment on these rules - I'd like to pounce on the energy in the forums while it's still there. :) [1] http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=38051 [2] http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?pid=290216 [3] http://img292.imageshack.us/my.php?image=submissionformjl2.png [4] http://img148.imageshack.us/my.php?image=submissionsampleul1.png -- Travis

2 5

[arch-dev-public] TU autonomy
by Paul Mattal 17 Oct '07

17 Oct '07

One other thing to remember in this whole repo debate is that, while the TUs derive some authority from the dev structure (primarily by means of our hosting the AUR), they are intended as a generally autonomous group. Deciding for them what should and shouldn't go in community will have repercussions. We should remember well our history lessons about how difficult it is to set up a stable and productive TU ecosystem before we rock that boat. We should not consider it obviously in our jurisdiction to use [community] as part of our own official repository plan. - P

3 3

[arch-dev-public] Missing MD5 sums (was: [arch-commits] CVS update of extra/science/gnuplot (PKGBUILD))
by Dan McGee 17 Oct '07

17 Oct '07

Roman- some people might not see "real" email on that list, so its usually best to forward it here. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Roman Kyrylych <roman.kyrylych(a)gmail.com> Date: Oct 17, 2007 7:10 AM Subject: Re: [arch-commits] CVS update of extra/science/gnuplot (PKGBUILD) To: ArchLinux packaging commits <arch-commits(a)archlinux.org> 2007/10/17, Damir Perisa <damir(a)archlinux.org>: > Date: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 @ 07:32:20 > Author: damir > Path: /home/cvs-extra/extra/science/gnuplot > > Modified: PKGBUILD (1.12 -> 1.13) > > upgpkg: gnuplot 4.2.2-1 > ... > -md5sums=('f688a578ddb4c376fd7d91ce444a0745') Huh? Why didn't you put updated md5sums here? -- Roman Kyrylych (Роман Кирилич) _______________________________________________ arch-commits mailing list arch-commits(a)archlinux.org http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch-commits

2 1

[arch-dev-public] Where [erxtra] ends and [community] begins
by Pierre Schmitz 17 Oct '07

17 Oct '07

Hi, after the creation of the [core] repository and the cleanup of old [current] it should be clear which packages should be in [core] and which don't. But the border between [extra] and [community] does not seem to be that sharp. Does [extra] only include the most important and essential packages? Is [community] only a playground and a repo full of alpha releases? Defining [extra] in a clear way should make it easier to cleanup this repo, too. We still have a lot of unmaintained or outdated packages. Pierre -- archlinux.de

8 12

Re: [arch-dev-public] Freshen Arch's Graphical Identity (Logo)
by Paul Mattal 17 Oct '07

17 Oct '07

Jason Chu wrote: > On Sun, Oct 14, 2007 at 07:43:40PM -0700, eliott wrote: >> I am all for a competition, but I don't know about community vote. >> >> How about community submissions, and voted on by the Arch devs, and TUs? >> >> I don't want to be represented by a piece of talking poop or anything.. >> though..i might vote for that. >> >> I mean...hey... talking poop. >> >> Did this post of mine even make sense? >> *head scratching* > > I'd like to hear what the community thought, but not necessarily go with > what they choose. If we switch the logo, I think we should consider having a trademark search run on our final design(s) and getting our trademark registered. As we grow, I think we'd like to have some protection against people telling us we can't use our logo. - P

2 1

[arch-dev-public] Freshen Arch's Graphical Identity (Logo)
by Travis Willard 16 Oct '07

16 Oct '07

Hey all! A few threads have started up in the last little while on the forums with "new" logo concepts for Arch - having read them, the most recent[1] made me start thinking that maybe we should put some thought into updating the logo and making it look a bit more professional. I personally would like to see a bit of an update there, something a bit snappier than our current logo[2] which, to me, is looking a bit dated and unprofessional. Suggestions have been made to allow the community to participate, in both the creation of logos for the purpose of being the "new official front-page Arch logo" and also for voting which of the submissions should be used. I like the idea of a community-designed logo, and the activity in the thread linked below would indicate that the community is also pretty enthused at the thought, but we could always just do a Dev-vote to decide which of the submissions we'd prefer if we didn't want to make it a community vote. In any case, I think this is worth investing time in, and I'm prepared to spearhead any initiative on this front. What I'm looking for now is your opinions - do you agree or disagree that maybe it's time to give the logo a sprucing-up? Any comments from the dev team? What's your opinion, Aaron, o benevolant overlord who is currently away on a great trip of sorts but will shortly return? Looking forward to your responses. :) [1] http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=38051 [2] http://bbs.archlinux.org/img/header.png -- Travis

10 25

[arch-dev-public] Perl policy [was: Status Report 2007-10-15]
by Aaron Griffin 16 Oct '07

16 Oct '07

On 10/15/07, Jeff 'codemac' Mickey <jeff(a)archlinux.org> wrote: > * On Monday, October 15 2007, Aaron Griffin wrote: > > >* Perl policy > > > >This week I am going to coordinate with François (Firmicus) and anyone > >else interested in our perl packages and clean up what we have. > > You should _really_ talk to xterminus/charles about this. He's quite the > perl man as well, and I think you know that. Though I haven't seen him > around in a while, I can send you his IM info so you can ping him. Let me know if you can get a hold of him. According to Francois, he has been unable to get ahold of Charles in a few months.

1 0