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

Re: [arch-general] Common Lisp packaging
by Leslie P. Polzer 23 Feb '09

23 Feb '09

> There is this wiki page that has (or started?) put together guidelines > for the packaging of lisp packages. Interesting, thanks. This page is a bit eclectic right now. Gentoo has an excellent one in its Wiki: http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/lisp/common-lisp/guide.xml In my opinion the first essential step is defining a common location for all packages and a framework for having user- and implementation-specific locations for the compiled binaries. I also wonder whether all people interested in Arch and Common Lisp are reading this, or whether some are only active in the forums. Leslie -- LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/polzer Xing Profile: https://www.xing.com/profile/LeslieP_Polzer Blog: http://blog.viridian-project.de/

3 2

[arch-general] libxxx.so.yy not found
by Alexey Ramodin 23 Feb '09

23 Feb '09

Hi all, Once i've upgraded some pkgs I have some errors that a program cannot start because a lib is not found. For example I need libkrb5.so.22 but: $ ls /usr/lib/libkrb5.so lrwxrwxrwx 2 root root 17 2009-01-08 02:40 /usr/lib/libkrb5.so -> libkrb5.so.25.0.0 lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 17 2009-01-08 02:40 /usr/lib/libkrb5.so.25 -> libkrb5.so.25.0.0 -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 471594 2009-01-08 02:41 /usr/lib/libkrb5.so.25.0.0 So, I have the lib but a little bit newer. Making a link on libkrb5.so.25.0.0 solves the problem. At least it looks so. lrwxrwxrwx 2 root root 17 2009-01-08 02:40 /usr/lib/libkrb5.so.22 -> libkrb5.so.25.0.0 I've done the same for some other libs (ut to 10... ) The question is simple, is it a way or i'll have my arch unworkable in the future? (i know about pacman -Syu ....) -- Thanks, Alex

4 3

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] Changing raid/raid-partitions initcpio hooks
by Michal Soltys 22 Feb '09

22 Feb '09

Tobias Powalowski wrote: > Hi guys, > while experimenting with different raid setups in kvm, i found out our raid > support is not really ideal. > > The status now: > - raid hook(inlcuded in mkinitcpio package) does assemble normal raid: > but if a drive fails it will fail to boot after it. > i'm not 100% sure if it can handle all types of raid levels, partitionable > mdp raid doesn't work at all with this hook for sure. > - raid-partitions(included in mdadm package) can only assemble 1 raid > partition array, which is imho bad you should be able to assemble more than > one raid partition device from commandline, if you wish to do so. > - UUID is not supported in any of both. > A few notes, as I have mentioned it a few times in the past year(s) regarding the hooks you use. Why to rely on kernel commandline and in-kernel detection ? This is kinda legacy and deprecated (as far as I know) approach. IIRC in-kernel assembly also has problems with 1.x md superblocks, recalling mailing list - but I'm not sure as I never really use kernel assembly. Having initramfs generator like mkinitcpio, just make sure proper /etc/mdadm.conf is included into generated image through install part of the hook. In most systems I use, I have root on lvm on raid. Regardless of what is used for initramfs image, the part responsible for md basically requires module loading (if necessary) and mdadm -As. Mdadm doesn't need any manual device nodes creation, neither does mdassemble.auto. Udev rules in the background do the rest, so one can have e.g. root=/dev/disk/by-..... should it be needed. I described the general idea in http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/9122 It also tries to dynamically create mdadm.conf in case one doesn't exist (going from mdadm -Es, instead of parsing kernel commandline). And it detects required modules as well. Also, as of current kernel and mdadm, each md raid is partitionable by default. Old naming scheme for partitionable raids remained for backwards compatibility. Remarks, as the above is already 1+ year old: Device access is still needed to trigger partition uevents. Future mdadm (3.x) will work with udev properly, recalling long discussion about it on linux-raid. Some of the simple changes to udev ruels I suggested made it into upstream as well. Most generic one (including scanner helper for custom raid names and etc., not mentioned in the above bugreport) didn't, being too hackish. Still - simple naming, once you decide on single arch preferred standard is pretty trivial without any external helpers. The only "drawback" is having libc or static mdadm / mdassemble.auto in the image Unless someone is trying to boot Arch on machine with incredibly low amount of ram (even for P2 ages), this is hardly any problem. On a related note - arch's udev rules (81-...) still have entry for md, which should likely be removed, as 64-... takes care of it. Current udev also allow overriding NAME in further rules, should that matter for arch. FYI. Sorry for crossposting, no other way though :)

1 0

[arch-general] [signoff] kernel26 2.6.28.7-1
by Tobias Powalowski 22 Feb '09

22 Feb '09

Hi guys, new kernel adresses the following things: - bump to latest version please signoff for both arches greetings tpowa -- Tobias Powalowski Archlinux Developer & Package Maintainer (tpowa) http://www.archlinux.org tpowa(a)archlinux.org

1 0

[arch-general] [signoff] pptpclient 1.7.2-2
by Daniel Isenmann 22 Feb '09

22 Feb '09

Hi, please signoff for both architectures. I can't test it because I don't use it. Following bug was fixed: [pptp-1.7.2-1] try to use /bin/ip instead of /usr/sbin/ip FS#11939 (http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/11939) Cheers, Daniel

1 2

[arch-general] arch way for ip aliasing
by Adam Stokes 22 Feb '09

22 Feb '09

Does one exist or are we still putting them in rc.local? Thanks -- ( adam stokes ) || ( adam.stokes(a)gmail.com )

4 4

[arch-general] how to mount external hdd
by Preston C. 20 Feb '09

20 Feb '09

I think that this is a simple question. How do I mount an external hard drive before I log into my desktop? Thanks

16 32

[arch-general] closed bugs, open comments?
by Damjan Georgievski 20 Feb '09

20 Feb '09

I find it pretty frustrating that once bugs are closed in http://bugs.archlinux.org/ you can no longer add comments. The only option you have is request re-opening of the bug, which, I guess, would then frustrate the maintainer who closed the bug. Adding comments to already closed bugs makes sense to me, since the *discussion* is almost always not over when it's (too hastily?) closed. Sometimes you want to add comments that strengthens the case for closing the report, which also means the report will not be re-opened in the future. Sometimes you need to supply more information. -- damjan

13 25

[arch-general] Guest speaker
by Colin Conrad 19 Feb '09

19 Feb '09

Hello, I am writing on behalf of the Dalhousie University OSUM (http://studentdevelopers.ning.com/group/dalosum) in Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. We are having an Linux "Infofest" on March 14th, 2009 from1PM to 4PM, where by the general public could come out and hear why they should try Linux instead of Windows. This will be followed by an Installfest two weeks later. We would like someone from the ArchLinux team to come out and talk for an around 45 minutes about ArchLinux and what advantages it has over the commercial OSs out there. The person who is willing to do so can e-mail me directly at: cmconrad79(a)gmail.com Cheers, Colin

1 0

[arch-general] xterm and xorg-apps
by Andrew Przepioski 19 Feb '09

19 Feb '09

How come xorg-apps is a dependency for xterm? Been a lil' curious for awhile and have tried figuring it out, but found nothing so I figured I would ask here.

4 11