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

[arch-dev-public] [signoff] sudo in testing
by Paul Mattal 19 Oct '07

19 Oct '07

I have adopted sudo, and placed the newest version in testing. This version returns to the upstream default of not insulting you when you get your password wrong, except if you actually enable this in /etc/sudoers. Given that Arch is a multi-purpose distro that is used in many settings (e.g. my office), this seems more appropriate. Those wishing the verbal abuse can still set the insults option in /etc/sudoers. Because this is a significant package, I would appreciate it if at least one dev would sign off before I move it to [extra]. Thanks! - P

4 3

[arch-dev-public] Repo Distinctions
by Paul Mattal 19 Oct '07

19 Oct '07

So I've been listening to the discussion about what should and shouldn't be in extra so far, and I've come to the following conclusions: 1) Niche is subjective. 2) Even if it weren't, whether a package is "niche" or "mainstream" is not a good criterion for classifying it in one repo or another. 3) Some good criteria for classifying packages in one repo or another are: a) Desire to maintain a package long-term. b) Association with a particular group of people you trust. 4) There are many who actually do trust developers more than TUs. This is not intended as a judgement, rather as an observation. My feeling is that we should have under the developer umbrella a split of the existing [extra] into two repos: [main] - to be in the main repo, a package must be voted in by a majority of the developers; we commit to maintaining these packages over a long period of time, and announce 6-12 months in advance if we're going to remove them (and again, this removal requires a majority vote); there should never be any orphans in here, and we should be extremely stingy about putting packages in here in the first place [extra] - developers can maintain any packages in here they wish; if they decide to orphan them, they must announce that to the developers and TUs and see if anyone wants to take them on; if nobody wants them, they get demoted and orphaned in unsupported so that the community can still benefit from the work they once did This is just a proposal intended as a starting point for discussion. But I think some notion of a supported group of [main] packages that we collectively commit to maintaining will make us feel less bad about a more in-flux [extra]. Also, a clear process about what you do when you orphan a package helps get those packages picked up by those with time or inclination to deal with them. For those who would say: why not just use [community] as the [extra] you're proposing above? The answer: so you can tell which group of individuals is standing behind these packages-- the developers. With that information, you can then decide for yourself who to trust. - P

8 32

[arch-dev-public] [signoff] kernel26 2.6.23.1
by Tobias Powalowski 19 Oct '07

19 Oct '07

Hi kernel 2.6.23 for both arches in testing, please signoff greetings tpowa -- Tobias Powalowski Archlinux Developer & Package Maintainer (tpowa) http://www.archlinux.org tpowa(a)archlinux.org

11 10

[arch-dev-public] new release name?
by Tobias Powalowski 18 Oct '07

18 Oct '07

Ok seems this was overseeen in my previous mail: NEW RELEASE NAME: - Hardcore - All you can wuerstchen throw in new suggestions or vote +1 fot the name you like. greetings tpowa -- Tobias Powalowski Archlinux Developer & Package Maintainer (tpowa) http://www.archlinux.org tpowa(a)archlinux.org

10 10

[arch-dev-public] Unbotched PKGBUILD patch
by Paul Mattal 18 Oct '07

18 Oct '07

The first PKGBUILD patch was slightly botched (in the process of minimizing the diff). New version attached. - P

1 0

[arch-dev-public] [signoff] or remove wlan-ng26 from core?
by Tobias Powalowski 18 Oct '07

18 Oct '07

Hi wlan-ng26 for both arches in testing, please signoff noone uses it anymore on dev crew nor a users was found. decide what to do with it, it compiled at least. greetings tpowa -- Tobias Powalowski Archlinux Developer & Package Maintainer (tpowa) http://www.archlinux.org tpowa(a)archlinux.org

5 8

[arch-dev-public] Status of QT4
by Pierre Schmitz 18 Oct '07

18 Oct '07

Hi, I just wanted to ask what the status of QT4 is. There are some packages which cannot be updated due to dependency on the new version of QT. It wouldn't be that bad idea to update qt before KDE4 is ready. I wonder if the following upgrade path works: * introduce a qt3 package (just rename the current qt; files should stay in /opt/qt) * repackage those packages which directly depend on qt3. (there are not that many) * update the qt package to version 4 and install all files to /usr * packages like kdebase should still work because they do not directly depend on qt (from pacmans point of view) and search fore qt files in /opt/qt. What do you think? Is it really that simple? Pierre -- archlinux.de

5 5

[arch-dev-public] [signoff] udev 116-2
by Tobias Powalowski 18 Oct '07

18 Oct '07

Hi i put new udev-116-2 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 2

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

18 Oct '07

Hi i put new wireless_tools 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] 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