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

[arch-dev-public] ArchISO Testing
by Simo Leone 25 Oct '07

25 Oct '07

Hey everyone, Those of you that follow projects.archlinux.org have probably already noticed a little project called archiso. Dan and I have been hacking at them quite a bit lately, and I think it's time to share :) Basically it's a set of scripts that can be used to generate Arch liveCD's. They're very, very, (did I say very?) simple. Both by design and to use. They are also very powerful. Pretty much any liveCD system you could imagine can be molded out of them with little effort. They're lightweight, and they're designed to use plain old arch packages to form the system. Anyhow, we've beat the crap out of them as best we know how, and we ran out of ways to break them. Now we're asking you to do the same. If you want to give the scripts a whirl, grab them out of the git repo[1] and take a look. It's pretty straightforward. If you don't really care about the scripts, but are curious about what you can make with them, I've generated a few sample ISOs [2] that may interest you. (actually these isos may appear in a little bit, i'm still generating them) Let me know what you think, and of course, patches welcome ;) -S [1] http://projects.archlinux.org/git/?p=archiso.git;a=summary [2] http://www.archlinux.org/~simo/archiso_tests/

2 2

[arch-dev-public] Fglrx and xorg-server 1.4
by Travis Willard 25 Oct '07

25 Oct '07

Just so everybody knows, The new fglrx package currently in testing, version 8.42.3, has xorg-server 1.4 support. Apparently it's not amazing at a lot of things it does (I'm personally stuck on 8.40 due to graphical corruption bugs) but while it breaks for many, it also does work for many people, and I'll be pushing it to [extra] in due time. In any case, fglrx should likely not hold up xorg-server 1.4 anymore, if it still was in the first place. -- Travis

2 1

[arch-dev-public] flyspray category for supp./unsupp. community packages?
by Andreas Radke 25 Oct '07

25 Oct '07

You all know we don't have a special category for community packages in our bug tracker. But why? I haven't seen any request for it until now. So far we point every request where to file bugs for community packages to the AUR comment fields. I see no good reason why we do that. We should have a dedicated bug tracking system with RSS feeds and maintainer assignment also for the community packages. Then everybody reading the feeds could help out fixing them. I expect a good improvement of the packaging quality. I don't know if it would be useful to also have it for the unsupported AUR packages. Maybe we should just start only with the supported community packages. What do TUs and other Devs think about it? And Roman? Andy

6 5

[arch-dev-public] [draft] - Arch Linux Logo Competition Announcement
by Travis Willard 24 Oct '07

24 Oct '07

Hey everyone, Damn, I dropped the ball here - I wanted to have this draft ready Saturday morning so you'd have all weekend to look it over and correct all my horrid mistakes, but things came up and I got busy. :( In any case, I'll still give a couple of days to review the draft - I'll post it Thursday of this week. Anyway, here's the announcement I wish to put up for the Logo Competition. This will go on the homepage, in the announcements forum section, and to the arch-announce mailing list. One additional thread will be created, stickied and locked, to collect submissions; I will be filtering through my email daily and posting submissions to this thread. I figure this would be the cleanest way to accept submissions without the submission thread possibly getting spammed with non-submissions. Anyway, here's the text: --------------------------------------------------------- Arch Linux Logo Competition Hello everyone! As you may have heard, the Arch logo as we know it is going the way of the dodo! We are refreshing our graphical identity, and in that spirit we're having a logo competition, open to the entire Arch community! We want to know what you think of when you think Arch Linux - what logo do you think would best suit the distribution we've all come to love? Submission guidelines are as follows: . Anyone can submit as many logo concepts as they wish . Entry is freeform, with no need to base it on current logo. Be creative! . All entries will become property of Arch Linux. Once the winning entry has been chosen, we will return rights of all other logos to their original authors, however the winning logo will remain property of Arch. Per submission, you will need: . SVG sources for logo preferred. If you don't know how to make SVG logos, but have a great idea, visit this[1] thread; foxbunny has graciously stepped up to help with logo concepts. . Fill out the following on this submission sheet[2] (courtesy of foxbunny) .. Name (or alias) .. Main logo areas (white/black/neutral BG) .. 2-colour or Black version .. 128x128px and 16x16px icon version .. Colour palette used All other fields are optional - you do not need them to create a submission, and omission of those options will not count negatively against you. Submit completed submission sheet attached in an email to travis AT archlinux.org. They will be posted in this[3] thread; two weeks after the date of this post, we will collect all submissions in that thread and judge. Judging will be the job of the Developers, and will proceed as follows: All submissions will be posted to the [arch-dev] private mailing list, and developers will give their +1 to those logos they like. They may add a +1 to more than one submission - once all developers are accounted for, the logo with the most +1 votes will win. Should multiple logo submissions tie for first place, those entries will be announced to the community, and we will have a community vote on the forums. The logo voted highest in this case will be the winner. Arch will retain all the rights of the winning logo, and will properly credit the winning author in all appropriate ways. We will want to use the logo for additional media - CD labels or wallpapers, for example. The winning author, should they so desire, may create this additional media at this point for Arch's use. Should they decline to create this additional media, the developers will have it created by another willing volunteer. Please note: there are also threads for logo concept discussion[4] and for showing off possible concepts, without entering them into the competition[5]. Feel free to make use of them. Good luck to all participants, and have fun! [1] http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=38666 [2] http://www.archlinux.org/~travis/logo-contest/submission-blank.png [2] (URL to go here once the thread is created) [3] http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=38051 [4] http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?pid=290216 -------------------------------------------------------- Please look over the announcement for anything you'd like to fix. Thanks! -- Travis

3 8

Re: [arch-dev-public] [tur-users] Mailing list name change/modifications
by Paul Mattal 24 Oct '07

24 Oct '07

eliott wrote: > I think it would be a good idea to make a few mailing list changes, in > particular for the aur community. > > Preconditions (What we have right now): > > tur-users -- end user aur user discussions, tu discussions, etc. > arch-projects -- aur development, and other random stuff. > > Problem: > > The arch-projects list is a bit low use, and seems random. Probably > too much of a catchall to be useful. > > The tur-users mailing list has a name that, to me, doesn't properly > coincide with the mailing list. If a more relevant name is needed than > aur-general, then please suggest it. Lets not get *too* bikesheddy > though. > > Proposal: > > 1. Rename tur-users list to aur-general, for tu chat, and end user > discussions. Same as current tur-users, just with a more relevant > name. > 2. Remove arch-projects mailing list. Too general. Only used for aur > development talk. > 3. Create an aur-dev mailing list, for aur backend coding/development. I like this proposal. How about just aur instead of aur-general? It doesn't really matter, though. - P

1 0

[arch-dev-public] archboot in the git tree
by Aaron Griffin 24 Oct '07

24 Oct '07

Hey all, Quick note. Dan got archboot converted from CVS and I moved it up to git... I think there are one or two mime-type issues, as some of the .sh files are read oddly by firefox, but it's not a huge deal. Right now tpowa is the owner and only one with access. Feel free to request access if you want to work on this. Thanks, Aaron

2 3

Re: [arch-dev-public] status of csup
by Roman Kyrylych 24 Oct '07

24 Oct '07

2007/10/23, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin(a)gmail.com>: > On 10/23/07, Paul Mattal <paul(a)mattal.com> wrote: > > Dan McGee wrote: > > > On 10/23/07, Roman Kyrylych <roman.kyrylych(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >> Right now sudo is in Extra. > > >> I request to move it to Core/base-devel because it is needed by > > >> makepkg to be used by user (which is the right way). > > > > > > Seems reasonable to me, +1 as long as it doesn't pull in other deps > > > and has maintainer(s). > > > > I will continue to maintain sudo in whatever location y'all deem > > fit. At the moment, it sounds like [core] but maybe not base-devel. > > > > It only depends on pam and glibc. > > I vote it moves to core. Whether in base or base-devel is not a huge > deal to me, though it fits better in base. > Hm, csup is like another candidate for base-devel - required by abs. abs can also work with cvsup but we're going to dump it anyway because it's non-portable. It's only 49,6K, dependencies are gcc, zlib and openssl (all in Core). gcc dependency should be changed to gcc-libs, of course. What do you think? -- Roman Kyrylych (Роман Кирилич)

3 2

[arch-dev-public] 2007.11-0.2 TEST ISO, 1 week signoff
by Tobias Powalowski 24 Oct '07

24 Oct '07

Hi i just placed the new "Core Dump" TEST ISO to the mirrors: ftp://ftp.archlinux.org/other/rc-iso/2007.11/ 1 week testing should be enough, I tested them in kvm-qemu and didn't find an issue. last change readded sk98lin network module, it seems still needed for some nics. greetings tpowa -- Tobias Powalowski Archlinux Developer & Package Maintainer (tpowa) http://www.archlinux.org tpowa(a)archlinux.org

1 0

[arch-dev-public] discussions to death, rules - no innovations?
by Andreas Radke 24 Oct '07

24 Oct '07

In the last few weeks I've seen so many threads about rules and votings we want to give ourself(e.g repo destinctions and repo dividing lines, pkg signoff, iso naming, package movements, license issues, cvs move,...). Wasn't it the big advantage to trust the ArchLinux developers that made it fast growing and bleading edge with an acceptable level of instability? I still like to decide myself what and when to move packages into the repos or when to remove them. Now I have to ask and wait for other devs to signoff packages even for minor bugfixes. And that for two architectures. Didn't we elect Mr. T to become the release manager to let him decide what to do? Now with all the discussions to death and often no actions following - see orphans and cleanup - I loose some of the Arch feeling. All these coming rules seem to slow us down more and more without finding new skilled manpower. I'm sure we all only want the best for ArchLinux but is that the right way? Some rules are always ok. But I have the feeling we are on the way to become somewhat of an overcontrolled and superduper planned Debian. Don't you feel the same? Andy

5 6

[arch-dev-public] SCM branch plans [was: Killing CVS]
by Aaron Griffin 23 Oct '07

23 Oct '07

On 10/23/07, Andreas Radke <a.radke(a)arcor.de> wrote: > Please make sure we will have an easy way to add more "branches" (so i > would call them in svn) from trunk. Right now we have the various repos > for two architectures. But a few devs have (serious?) plans or better > certain ideas to add more branches in the future. Right now our > infrastructure and manpower is the limit that prevents playing with > more stuff. I'm a little curious about what plans you speak of. I've never heard of of these plans like this, and it'd be nice to share thoughts and ideas here.

3 10