October 2009 - Arch-general - lists.archlinux.org

[arch-general] Teeworlds package is broken?
by Mathieu Pasquet 31 Oct '09

31 Oct '09

Hi, The teeworlds package from community seems broken since the last update (0.5.2). Here is what I get with the new package on ctf5 - for those who play teeworlds - (tee skins are personals): http://pix.mathieui.net/?action=search&method=tag&tag=teeworlds . That's really weird, and the original version from teeworlds website works fine, so I wonder what's going on.

2 2

[arch-general] how to boot Windows and Arch...
by Preston C. 31 Oct '09

31 Oct '09

Hi, I have two hard disks installed in my computer. One for Windows and the other for Arch Linux. I have tried to install Arch several times but get a message write after I click "Arch Linux" from the boot menu- it has something to do with "Error 17". I have come to see that my Grub configuration file is not configured properly. The problem is I do not know how to configure it properly- so that I can use Windows and Arch. The way I would like to go about choosing which OS I would like to use is by selecting it from the Grub boot menu. Although, if I have to choose a disk to boot from in the BIOS, than that is not a problem either. I have read on the Arch Wiki and the Grub Wiki, yet, do not know exactly how to properly configure the Grub configuration file to handle both OS's. Thanks for any help. Preston

3 10

[arch-general] mutt and gnupg
by Thomas Göbel 30 Oct '09

30 Oct '09

Hi listmates, i have a problem with mutt and gnupg. I have set the gpg-options described here: http://WIKI.mutt.org/?MuttGuide/UseGPG I use mutt with getmail/procmail and msmtp to receive/send mail. I have two mail-accounts (gmx.de and my university account). If i send me a signed mail from GMX to GMX mutt tells me "Good signature" and the status line tells "signature successfully verified". Sending mail from university-account to university-account everything works fine, too. The problem exists if i send from GMX to university. Now mutt tells me "BAD signature from" and "PGP signature could not be verified". Sending mail from university to GMX and mutt and gpg work well. The key is always the same and the key is made for both e-mail adresses. If i open both mails in the sent folder mutt tells me for both mails that the signature is successfully verified. Thanks, Tom Attached the PGP outputs: Bad signature ###################################################################### From: Tom <account1(a)gmx.net> To: student <stud(a)ohm-hochschule.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) [-- PGP output follows (current time: Fri Oct 30 11:32:13 2009) --] gpg: Signature made Fri Oct 30 11:20:19 2009 CET using DSA key ID C9B89DCD gpg: BAD signature from "Tom <account1(a)gmx.net>" [-- End of PGP output --] Good signature ###################################################################### From: student <student(a)ohm-hochschule.de> To: student(a)ohm-hochschule.de User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) [-- PGP output follows (current time: Fri Oct 30 11:36:23 2009) --] gpg: Signature made Fri Oct 30 11:22:25 2009 CET using DSA key ID C9B89DCD gpg: Good signature from "Tom <account1(a)gmx.net>" gpg: aka ""student" <student(a)ohm-hochschule.de>" [-- End of PGP output --]

2 1

[arch-general] Encrypted ram disk?
by Karol Babioch 30 Oct '09

30 Oct '09

Hi, after setting up a full system encryption, which works just fine basically, I know want to create a ram disk. I though that /tmp could be outsourced to a ram disk, to speed things up. However I'm wondering whether it really makes sense to encrypt this. If there is someone able to read my ram, there is nothing I can do about it, so encryption wouldn't work, would it? Furthermore the content of the RAM gets encrypted when suspending, as my swap partition is encrypted. Moreover I think that it would slow down the ram disk, and that the benefit wouldn't be that great at all. So what do you think, is there any rational reason to encrypt a ram disk, or is it fair enough, when I just create an unencrypted one for /tmp? Is there anything I can read about this topic? -- Best regards, Karol Babioch <karol(a)babioch.de>

8 14

[arch-general] ssh broken?
by Tobias Kieslich 29 Oct '09

29 Oct '09

Hi, I frequently ssh into localhost to sync files with unison. THat seems to be broken after the lates pacman -Syu which removed /var/empty. Is there sombody else who sees the same behavior? -T

3 3

[arch-general] netcfg
by fons＠kokkinizita.net 29 Oct '09

29 Oct '09

Hello all, I'm a new user of ArchLinux, so far installed on two machines (more wil follow). Coming from first Suse and then Fedora it was a big change, but I learned a lot in the process and have the nice feeling to be back in control of my machines (they also lost some weight). The one remaining problem is with netcfg 2.2.1. On my laptop I have the drivers e1000 and ipw2200 loaded in rc.conf, providing the devices eth0 and eth1 in fixed order. For the first I use: CONNECTION="ethernet-iproute" DESCRIPTION="Local ethernet - zita1 router" INTERFACE="eth0" IP="static" ADDR="192.168.2.241" GATEWAY="192.168.2.240" and this works nicely. The only strange thing is that it fails when the interface is not connected. I've never seen this on the systems I used before, and since you can disconnect the network cable and put it back without any ill effect on the interface configuration I'd really expect it to be configured as well if the physical connection is not present. For the wireless connection all the examples use dhcp but I need a fixed address. Combining the examples I arrived at: CONNECTION="wireless" DESCRIPTION="Wireless connection at Basilicanova" INTERFACE="eth1" SECURITY="wep" ESSID="lovettanet" KEY="........" IP="static" ADDR=192.168.1.241 GATEWAY="192.168.1.1" which fails with: lovetta up SIOCADDRT: No such process Adding gateway failed. After some experimentation I found that the following works: CONNECTION="wireless" DESCRIPTION="Wireless connection at Basilicanova" INTERFACE="eth1" SECURITY="wep" ESSID="lovettanet" KEY="........" IP="static" POST_UP="ifconfig eth1 192.168.1.241; route add default gw 192.168.1.1" But it doesn't feel right. Am I missing something obvious ? Many thanks, -- FA

2 1

[arch-general] Why qemu/kqemu conflict to kvm ?
by goodmenzy＠gmail.com 29 Oct '09

29 Oct '09

OK, ok, I want install qemu+kqemu and KVM in my machine. Why does they conflict? Sometime, I want my virtual machine run faster, so KVM is a great choice. But sometime, I need simulate other CPU: ppc arm ... , so qemu is the best choice. Why does them conflict? Can the community do some works to let them co-exist in the SAME archlinux installation?

3 2

[arch-general] 2 partitions with same UUID
by kurrata 28 Oct '09

28 Oct '09

I had problems with launching win xp it was crashing often since it didn't like my sata hard(sdb) drive or that it wasn't on boot disk most likely and since my root started to run out of space I decided to make some changes. move sda1(root) to sda2 while increasing sda2 size and install windows on sda1. sda is ata hard drive I increased sda2(it was used to test other linux distro) size up to 10gb from ~5.5GB with gparted Then did "dd if="/dev/sda1 of=/dev/sda2" from live usb install. Now when I do "sudo blkid" it shows that both sda1 and sda2 have same UIID. Any ideas how could I fix this?

3 2

[arch-general] Where to report bugs in community packages?
by David Rosenstrauch 27 Oct '09

27 Oct '09

Where should we report bugs for packages in community? Using the main Arch bug tracking system? If so, there's no selection under the "Category" pulldown for "Packages: Community" - just core, extra, and testing. If not, then where? Email the maintainer? Tnx, DR

2 1

[arch-general] defunct packages spooking around
by Firmicus 27 Oct '09

27 Oct '09

Hi folks, Sorry for the halloweenish subject heading ;) I recently got this bug report: http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/16690 It turned out it was not a bug with the perl package at all, but a problem which occurs when the presumably very old and no longer existing package "termcap-compat" is installed on a system. It was originally installed as a dependency for some other, unidentified package. And it turned out to my surprise that even I still had that package installed! That prompts me to ask the following: Are there other such obsolete packages that typically should no longer be installed on a "clean" Arch Linux system? I am not in favour of automating their removal, of course, but it would be useful to collect a list of such things that we could put in the wiki and/or our monthly newsletter. Another example that comes to mind is the obsolete file /etc/udev/udev.rules that I also still had until recently, and which I have removed after Thomas' suggestion. Please submit your suggestions for the forthcoming "Arch Ghostbusting Day" (aka "The Great Halloween Cleanup")! :) François

11 24