[arch-dev-public] [signoff] bash 3.2.033-2 and filesystem 2007.11-6
These two have been bumped because apparently some people still had problems due to an edge case with the generation of pacnew files I bumped both the package and the md5sum on profile in order to get around edge cases with no pacnew files bash was a version bump too mainly to move the man pages filesystem changes: Setup for FHS compliant man pages - FS#8839 Claim ownership of /etc/profile from bash - FS#4766 Remove LESSCHARSET env var from /etc/profile - FS#8877 bash changes: Update patch level to 033 Remove /etc/profile from package. Move bashisms to /etc/profile.bash - FS#4766 /etc/profile was also largely revamped. Please comment on the changes there if you'd like. I'd like to get these into core as soon as possible
2008/1/30, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com>:
These two have been bumped because apparently some people still had problems due to an edge case with the generation of pacnew files I bumped both the package and the md5sum on profile in order to get around edge cases with no pacnew files
bash was a version bump too mainly to move the man pages
filesystem changes: Setup for FHS compliant man pages - FS#8839 Claim ownership of /etc/profile from bash - FS#4766 Remove LESSCHARSET env var from /etc/profile - FS#8877
bash changes: Update patch level to 033 Remove /etc/profile from package. Move bashisms to /etc/profile.bash - FS#4766
/etc/profile was also largely revamped. Please comment on the changes there if you'd like.
I'd like to get these into core as soon as possible
http://archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-general/2008-January/016696.html Should we consider /etc/issue not being in backup array as a bug? Or this file should be added to NoUpgrade by user? -- Roman Kyrylych (Роман Кирилич)
On Jan 30, 2008 3:59 AM, Roman Kyrylych <roman.kyrylych@gmail.com> wrote:
2008/1/30, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com>:
These two have been bumped because apparently some people still had problems due to an edge case with the generation of pacnew files I bumped both the package and the md5sum on profile in order to get around edge cases with no pacnew files
bash was a version bump too mainly to move the man pages
filesystem changes: Setup for FHS compliant man pages - FS#8839 Claim ownership of /etc/profile from bash - FS#4766 Remove LESSCHARSET env var from /etc/profile - FS#8877
bash changes: Update patch level to 033 Remove /etc/profile from package. Move bashisms to /etc/profile.bash - FS#4766
/etc/profile was also largely revamped. Please comment on the changes there if you'd like.
I'd like to get these into core as soon as possible
http://archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-general/2008-January/016696.html Should we consider /etc/issue not being in backup array as a bug? Or this file should be added to NoUpgrade by user?
I see no reason why this should be backed up. There is nothing there for the user to modify in a normal situation, and I guess 99% of users would want it overwritten. Seems like a good NoUpgrade candidate to me. -Dan
On Jan 30, 2008 9:08 AM, Dan McGee <dpmcgee@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jan 30, 2008 3:59 AM, Roman Kyrylych <roman.kyrylych@gmail.com> wrote:
2008/1/30, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com>:
These two have been bumped because apparently some people still had problems due to an edge case with the generation of pacnew files I bumped both the package and the md5sum on profile in order to get around edge cases with no pacnew files
bash was a version bump too mainly to move the man pages
filesystem changes: Setup for FHS compliant man pages - FS#8839 Claim ownership of /etc/profile from bash - FS#4766 Remove LESSCHARSET env var from /etc/profile - FS#8877
bash changes: Update patch level to 033 Remove /etc/profile from package. Move bashisms to /etc/profile.bash - FS#4766
/etc/profile was also largely revamped. Please comment on the changes there if you'd like.
I'd like to get these into core as soon as possible
http://archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-general/2008-January/016696.html Should we consider /etc/issue not being in backup array as a bug? Or this file should be added to NoUpgrade by user?
I see no reason why this should be backed up. There is nothing there for the user to modify in a normal situation, and I guess 99% of users would want it overwritten. Seems like a good NoUpgrade candidate to me.
+1
2008/1/30, Dan McGee <dpmcgee@gmail.com>:
On Jan 30, 2008 3:59 AM, Roman Kyrylych <roman.kyrylych@gmail.com> wrote:
2008/1/30, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com>:
These two have been bumped because apparently some people still had problems due to an edge case with the generation of pacnew files I bumped both the package and the md5sum on profile in order to get around edge cases with no pacnew files
bash was a version bump too mainly to move the man pages
filesystem changes: Setup for FHS compliant man pages - FS#8839 Claim ownership of /etc/profile from bash - FS#4766 Remove LESSCHARSET env var from /etc/profile - FS#8877
bash changes: Update patch level to 033 Remove /etc/profile from package. Move bashisms to /etc/profile.bash - FS#4766
/etc/profile was also largely revamped. Please comment on the changes there if you'd like.
I'd like to get these into core as soon as possible
http://archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-general/2008-January/016696.html Should we consider /etc/issue not being in backup array as a bug? Or this file should be added to NoUpgrade by user?
I see no reason why this should be backed up. There is nothing there for the user to modify in a normal situation, and I guess 99% of users would want it overwritten. Seems like a good NoUpgrade candidate to me.
Sounds reasonable. Bash works, profiles work, language settings are restored correctly after reset&relogin (==profile.d works). Signed off (i686). -- Roman Kyrylych (Роман Кирилич)
-----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: arch-dev-public-bounces@archlinux.org [mailto:arch-dev-public- bounces@archlinux.org] Namens Dan McGee Verzonden: woensdag 30 januari 2008 15:08 Aan: Public mailing list for ArchLinux development Onderwerp: Re: [arch-dev-public] [signoff] bash 3.2.033-2 and filesystem 2007.11-6
http://archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-general/2008-January/016696.html Should we consider /etc/issue not being in backup array as a bug? Or this file should be added to NoUpgrade by user?
I see no reason why this should be backed up. There is nothing there for the user to modify in a normal situation, and I guess 99% of users would want it overwritten. Seems like a good NoUpgrade candidate to me.
As it is in /etc, it is a configuration file. As 99% of the users don't change it, 99% of those users won't see a .pacnew file whenever we change the file. For the 1% of the users that changes the configuration file, this file should be in backup.
On Jan 30, 2008 8:33 AM, Jan de Groot <jan@jgc.homeip.net> wrote:
-----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: arch-dev-public-bounces@archlinux.org [mailto:arch-dev-public- bounces@archlinux.org] Namens Dan McGee Verzonden: woensdag 30 januari 2008 15:08 Aan: Public mailing list for ArchLinux development Onderwerp: Re: [arch-dev-public] [signoff] bash 3.2.033-2 and filesystem 2007.11-6
http://archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-general/2008-January/016696.html Should we consider /etc/issue not being in backup array as a bug? Or this file should be added to NoUpgrade by user?
I see no reason why this should be backed up. There is nothing there for the user to modify in a normal situation, and I guess 99% of users would want it overwritten. Seems like a good NoUpgrade candidate to me.
As it is in /etc, it is a configuration file. As 99% of the users don't change it, 99% of those users won't see a .pacnew file whenever we change the file. For the 1% of the users that changes the configuration file, this file should be in backup.
Jan's is correct here, BUT /etc/issue has never been in the backup array as far as I can tell, so it is not a regression. Let's do the following: Sign off on this one so we can get it out the door and fix the REAL issues. New ISOs are coming soon, so we will need to bump this package anyway. We can add that then
On Jan 30, 2008 11:07 AM, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jan 30, 2008 8:33 AM, Jan de Groot <jan@jgc.homeip.net> wrote:
-----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: arch-dev-public-bounces@archlinux.org [mailto:arch-dev-public- bounces@archlinux.org] Namens Dan McGee Verzonden: woensdag 30 januari 2008 15:08 Aan: Public mailing list for ArchLinux development Onderwerp: Re: [arch-dev-public] [signoff] bash 3.2.033-2 and filesystem 2007.11-6
http://archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-general/2008-January/016696.html Should we consider /etc/issue not being in backup array as a bug? Or this file should be added to NoUpgrade by user?
I see no reason why this should be backed up. There is nothing there for the user to modify in a normal situation, and I guess 99% of users would want it overwritten. Seems like a good NoUpgrade candidate to me.
As it is in /etc, it is a configuration file. As 99% of the users don't change it, 99% of those users won't see a .pacnew file whenever we change the file. For the 1% of the users that changes the configuration file, this file should be in backup.
Jan's is correct here, BUT /etc/issue has never been in the backup array as far as I can tell, so it is not a regression. Let's do the following: Sign off on this one so we can get it out the door and fix the REAL issues. New ISOs are coming soon, so we will need to bump this package anyway. We can add that then
Signoff both packages, i686. -Dan
2008/1/30, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com>:
On Jan 30, 2008 8:33 AM, Jan de Groot <jan@jgc.homeip.net> wrote:
As it is in /etc, it is a configuration file. As 99% of the users don't change it, 99% of those users won't see a .pacnew file whenever we change the file. For the 1% of the users that changes the configuration file, this file should be in backup.
Jan's is correct here, BUT /etc/issue has never been in the backup array as far as I can tell, so it is not a regression. Let's do the following: Sign off on this one so we can get it out the door and fix the REAL issues. New ISOs are coming soon, so we will need to bump this package anyway. We can add that then
I found only http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/3644#comment7390 Probably it was in NoUpgrade or backup long time ago, but not recently. +1 for releasing filesystem as it is now, can be fixed later. -- Roman Kyrylych (Роман Кирилич)
On Jan 30, 2008 12:26 AM, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com> wrote:
These two have been bumped because apparently some people still had problems due to an edge case with the generation of pacnew files I bumped both the package and the md5sum on profile in order to get around edge cases with no pacnew files
bash was a version bump too mainly to move the man pages
filesystem changes: Setup for FHS compliant man pages - FS#8839 Claim ownership of /etc/profile from bash - FS#4766 Remove LESSCHARSET env var from /etc/profile - FS#8877
bash changes: Update patch level to 033 Remove /etc/profile from package. Move bashisms to /etc/profile.bash - FS#4766
/etc/profile was also largely revamped. Please comment on the changes there if you'd like.
I'd like to get these into core as soon as possible
Got enough i686 signoffs - any x86_64 guys?
On Jan 31, 2008 12:16 PM, Thomas Bächler <thomas@archlinux.org> wrote:
Aaron Griffin schrieb:
I'd like to get these into core as soon as possible
Got enough i686 signoffs - any x86_64 guys?
No issues here.
Ok, I've tested on both my x86_64 and i686 machines. Moving to core.
participants (6)
-
Aaron Griffin
-
Dan McGee
-
Jan de Groot
-
Roman Kyrylych
-
Thomas Bächler
-
Travis Willard