February 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

[arch-general] Multiple Kernels
by Nilesh Govindarajan 02 Feb '10

02 Feb '10

How to install multiple kernels using pacman ? Arch should do something like Fedora/Redhat. Maintain 1-2 previous kernels so that if a new one is buggy, then the old one can be used. -- Nilesh Govindarajan Site & Server Adminstrator www.itech7.com

21 41

[arch-general] [signoff] tcp_wrappers-7.6-11
by Tobias Powalowski 02 Feb '10

02 Feb '10

Hi guys, signoff for both arches please fixes: http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/16048 #ipv6 support http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/17502 #compile options greetings tpowa -- Tobias Powalowski Archlinux Developer & Package Maintainer (tpowa) http://www.archlinux.org tpowa(a)archlinux.org

1 0

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] Prelink/Preload
by Nick Stepa 02 Feb '10

02 Feb '10

Hello, list! Do this programs makes system faster? Maybe anyone use this program. II can`t find article in archlinux wiki about them, only in gentoo wiki(or handbook) - so i can`t find an answer to "is this good for Archlinux". PS Plz share /etc/prelink.conf

5 7

[arch-general] sysinit fsck problem
by Tom 02 Feb '10

02 Feb '10

Maybe you remember I was going on about faulty initscripts a while back, specifically that I was being forced through a 'forced fsck' even though I pressed control-c. > Maybe fsck doesn't return 32 as it's supposed to. You can verify this > by adding `echo fsck returned ${fsckret}' inside that code block in > /etc/rc.sysinit. Next time you'll encounter this behavior, you'll > know the code returned by fsck. From there, you might be able to > troubleshoot this issue further. Well I tested this, and its actually returning 8, which quoting the man-page means "8 - Operational error" So maybe somebody else can try this, and confirm fsck is not behaving as it should!? Regards Tom

1 0

[arch-general] core/linux-api-headers?
by richard terry 01 Feb '10

01 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-dev-public] exim maintainer wanted
by Xavier Chantry 01 Feb '10

01 Feb '10

On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 10:55 PM, Allan McRae <allan(a)archlinux.org> wrote: > On 01/02/10 13:08, Allan McRae wrote: >> >> exim has no maintainer and I have been assigned a bug for it as the last >> person to rebuild it (db-4.8 rebuild). I do not use it and have no >> intentions of fixing the bug. Does anybody want to be the maintainer? > > Anyone? It now has two bug reports, one of which contains a patch to fix > both issues. However, me fixing this only means I will be assigned the next > bug it has... > > Allan > Just drop it to AUR :)

1 0

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