January 2010 - Arch-general - lists.archlinux.org

[arch-general] Arch Linux and security - it needs some work
by Ananda Samaddar 03 Feb '10

03 Feb '10

I really like Arch. I switched about a year ago after being a Debian user for nine years. There is something that troubles me though about Arch. Its lack of security focus. By this I mean there is no consistent way that security issues are dealt with. There was a proposal for 'The Arch Linux Security Team' but it seems to have fallen by the wayside[1]. I propose to resurrect this in the spirit of Arch's users becoming contributors. I, hopefully not alone wish to draw up a list of processes that can be used to create a dedicated Arch Linux security team that can deal quickly and efficiently with security alerts. It would need to be able to liaise successfully with Arch developers and hopefully over time security team members can become trusted users. I'm mentioning it now as I notice that an Arch Conference is being organised in Canada. One of my proposals (shamefully stolen from Debian) would be to have key-signing parties at Arch Linux meet-ups. This could then be used to create an Arch Linux web of trust. So basically I'm going to get my ideas into writing and post them on this list. I hope others will be willing to come forward and contribute too. After some discussion we should be able to reach a consensus and start giving security issues the priority they deserve. regards, Ananda Samaddar [1] http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Security_Task_Force

12 13

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] [signoff] xfsprogs-3.1.1
by Tobias Powalowski 02 Feb '10

02 Feb '10

Hi bump to latest version, xfsprogs-3.1.1 (29 January 2010) - Fix various blkid topology support problems in mkfs.xfs. - Fix various build warnings. - Add automatic build dependency calculations. - Cleaner build system output. - Add missing aclocal m4 file to the package generation. - Arrange for release tags to be digitally signed. please signoff both arches, thanks greetings tpowa -- Tobias Powalowski Archlinux Developer & Package Maintainer (tpowa) http://www.archlinux.org tpowa(a)archlinux.org

3 4

Re: [arch-general] An old, tiresome discussion: cdrtools vs cdrkit
by Jim Pryor 02 Feb '10

02 Feb '10

Wow, this thread got very hot very fast. I composed this about an hour ago, when things were much cooler. But the questions still seem worth raising. I understand Joerg's frustration about the burden of proof issue here, and I also understand Allan's and Phrakture's reluctance, in the light of our not having more solid evidence from disinterested parties. Apparently Joerg has seen more such evidence, but is not in a position to provide it. That's unfortunate, but understandable. People are getting alternately enthusiastic, and frustrated, and annoyed with each other, but that seems to be about where this stands. Aren't there two questions here, though? 1. Should we distribute binaries of cdrtools? 2. Should we distribute binaries of cdrkit? Setting 1 aside for the moment, it sounds to me---not based wholly on this thread, but this thread exhausts my recent reading on the issue---like there are possible legal issues with 2, and in fact it sounds to me like the case for that is rather stronger than the case for there being legal issues with 1. That impression survives even if the case against cdrkit does all trace back to claims made by Joerg---which I don't know to be so but which has been alleged here. There are technical reasons for thinking cdrtools is much preferable to cdrkit; however that leaves it open whether cdrkit is or isn't good enough for the needs that prompt us to distribute a binary of either of these packages. As I said I do understand the reasons given for hesitating about cdrtools. But it sounds to me like cdrkit survives equally careful scrutiny less well. So why isn't the decision tree: be most cautious legally, and distribute neither be moderately cautious legally, in which case although it's not obvious cdrtools is in the clear, the case against cdrkit seems stronger, so if one is to be distributed it should be cdrtools trust other distros, and decide we're clear to distribute either, in which case the technical merits again speak for cdrtools. -- Jim Pryor jim(a)jimpryor.net

17 28

[arch-general] core/linux-api-headers?
by richard terry 02 Feb '10

02 Feb '10

Hi List, Just went to do a system upgrade and noticed this and unsure what it means or if I should so Yes: :: Replace kernel-headers with core/linux-api-headers? [Y/n] n Any comments? Thanks in anticipation. Richard

15 21

Re: [arch-general] Arch Linux and security - it needs some work
by Nicky726 01 Feb '10

01 Feb '10

Hm, would be nice. :-) I ve been digging into SELinux and Arch lately, and yes some more official support would be nice. If there is something being organized, I'd gladly help, at least in this SELinux area. Regards, Ondrej Vadinsky -- Don`t it always seem to go That you don`t know what you`ve got Till it`s gone. (Joni Mitchell)

4 3

[arch-general] Why taking so long?
by Andrea Crotti 01 Feb '10

01 Feb '10

Sometimes (only twice actually) I had to recompile the kernel with ice support from aur. Now compiling the kernel is not a short job, but it looks like it really compiles EVERYTHING! Maybe putting my .config somewhere it will not do it, how do you manage it? Thanks

9 15

[arch-general] Firefox 3.5.7 not support eh !??
by Nilesh Govindarajan 01 Feb '10

01 Feb '10

Something is seriously funny going on here with FF 3.5.7 (Shiretoko). I'm using it from the arch repos, but on visiting Google Help or Orkut, it says Browser not supported ? And the supported browser list says FF 1.5+ Something is wrong with the arch build ? -- Nilesh Govindarajan Site & Server Adminstrator www.itech7.com

7 8

[arch-general] Netcfg after resume from suspend
by Ng Oon-Ee 01 Feb '10

01 Feb '10

Hi all, I'm using netcfg and recently have been noticing the following. When I resume from suspend I call 'netcfg home' which tries to connect to my home's wifi network. ESSID and WEP key are correctly set. It exist with a 'could not obtain IP address error, this is the dmesg:- Registered led device: iwl-phy0::radio Registered led device: iwl-phy0::assoc Registered led device: iwl-phy0::RX Registered led device: iwl-phy0::TX ADDRCONF(NETDEV_UP): wlan0: link is not ready wlan0: direct probe to AP 00:14:7c:be:39:ac (try 1) wlan0: direct probe responded wlan0: authenticate with AP 00:14:7c:be:39:ac (try 1) wlan0: authenticated wlan0: associate with AP 00:14:7c:be:39:ac (try 1) wlan0: RX AssocResp from 00:14:7c:be:39:ac (capab=0x471 status=0 aid=1) wlan0: associated ADDRCONF(NETDEV_CHANGE): wlan0: link becomes ready wlan0: no IPv6 routers present wlan0: deauthenticating from 00:14:7c:be:39:ac by local choice (reason=3) The weird thing is that when I run 'iwconfig wlan0 essid MYESSID key MYKEY', then run 'netcfg home' again it works no problem. Suggestions for what I can check out are welcome. This happens both on stock kernel and my custom -ice kernel, am up-to-date (without testing for now, due to my openoffice variant not being done yet).

6 9

[arch-general] [signoff] inetutils 1.7-2
by Eric Bélanger 01 Feb '10

01 Feb '10

Hi, inetutils-1.7-2 is in testing. The localstatedir was fixed (FS#17981). Please test and signoff. Users signoff will be appreciated as not a lot of devs use these tools. Eric

1 1

[arch-general] kernel-lts ....
by William A. Mahaffey III 01 Feb '10

01 Feb '10

.... I am new to the list, used Linux since Caldera 2.2. I noticed references to a kernel-lts, labelled as 'long-time-support' on the Arch website. I did a bit of googling & noticed references to such from Arch & Ubuntu forums. I found no references at kernel.org, although I noticed that they listed an upgrade to kernel 2.6.27.45, same number as the '-lts' kernel in Arch. Is the 'lts' kernel project Arch/Ubuntu-specific, or (semi-?) supported from kernel.org ? Also, I noticed that the bleeding edge kernels (seem to) include firmware packages, but I didn't see them for the lts kernels, did I just miss them or are they absent from the 'lts' series of kernels ? TIA .... -- William A. Mahaffey III ---------------------------------------------------------------------- "The M1 Garand is without doubt the finest implement of war ever devised by man." -- Gen. George S. Patton Jr.

3 3