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

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] [signoff] kernel26 2.6.33.1-1
by Ignacio Galmarino 16 Mar '10

16 Mar '10

On 03/15/2010 01:16 PM, Thomas Bächler wrote: > No idea if it is time for signoff yet, I have to check that with tpowa. > However, I put 2.6.31.1 in testing with these changes: > > - Added a trivial patch to support my touchpad (selfish, I know, but it > is already accepted upstream for 2.6.34) > - Removed EXT4_USE_FOR_EXT23 due to some problems that upstream isn't > quite finished discussing yet - we can keep using the ext2 and ext3 > drivers for now. > sign off x86_64 ATI KMS early start is working again ! Ignacio

1 0

[arch-general] Btrfs more than twice as fast compared to ext4
by Shridhar Daithankar 16 Mar '10

16 Mar '10

Hi, Just wanted to share an interesting experience I had today. Check http://ghodechhap.net/btrfs.performance.txt -- Regards Shridhar

3 5

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] [signoff] kernel26 2.6.33.1-1
by Gerardo Exequiel Pozzi 15 Mar '10

15 Mar '10

On 03/15/2010 08:14 PM, Eric Bélanger wrote: > On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 3:16 PM, Thomas Bächler<thomas(a)archlinux.org> wrote: > >> No idea if it is time for signoff yet, I have to check that with tpowa. >> However, I put 2.6.31.1 in testing with these changes: >> >> - Added a trivial patch to support my touchpad (selfish, I know, but it >> is already accepted upstream for 2.6.34) >> - Removed EXT4_USE_FOR_EXT23 due to some problems that upstream isn't >> quite finished discussing yet - we can keep using the ext2 and ext3 >> drivers for now. >> >> >> > I'm getting a: > error: /dev/sr0: No medium found > when building my initrc. The device exist and is my CD-drive. This is > on i686. Ask if you need more info This is already reported here: FS#18585 - [mkinitcpio] Silent error message: No medium found in autodetect hook http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/18585 -- Gerardo Exequiel Pozzi ( djgera ) http://www.djgera.com.ar KeyID: 0x1B8C330D Key fingerprint = 0CAA D5D4 CD85 4434 A219 76ED 39AB 221B 1B8C 330D

1 0

[arch-general] twm: cannot open fontset
by Thanos Zygouris 15 Mar '10

15 Mar '10

Hello listmates, Here is a problem i encountered: twm doesn't start...i got this message instead: /usr/bin/twm: unable to open fontset <anyfont> I tried almost all the fonts xfontsel showed me, including "fixed", "terminal", "terminus", but with no success... But when i changed my $LANG from en_US.utf8 to C, twm worked! I tried to start twm into my friends pc (archlinux x64 also) and it worked right away (LANG=en_US.utf8) Searched Google and Archlinux forums, but seems like i'm the only person who have this problem (or bother with twm :P) I'd like to log in to twm, without having to change $LANG variable (as the normal behaviour is)...Can someone help me here? PS. I attached my xorg.conf, in case it matters...

2 2

[arch-general] [signoff] kernel26 2.6.32.10-1
by Thomas Bächler 15 Mar '10

15 Mar '10

Packages are NOT in testing (as 2.6.33 is there), but available from http://dev.archlinux.org/~thomas/kernel26/ Please sign off.

1 0

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] Allow comments on closed bugs?
by Heiko Baums 15 Mar '10

15 Mar '10

Am Sat, 13 Mar 2010 08:39:05 +1000 schrieb Allan McRae <allan(a)archlinux.org>: > I really do not see the need. > > If a bug is wrongly closed -> request a reopen. > If you just want to confirm a bug has been fixed, there is no need... > we already closed the bug report. > If there is a "better" fix, reopen request or new bug report. And this is forcing the reporter to begging for reopening and looking again at the bug. Closing a bug too early can in the reporter's sight mean: "Hey! I'm the king and I decide if I'm willing to fix the bug. And if I don't want to, then you don't have to say anything. Your subject to my merci." Of course this is a bit exaggerated and of course in most cases the developer doesn't mean it, but this is how the reporter can easily understand it. And this can lead to such misunderstandings and to angry reactions. Don't see this only from your (the developer's) point of view. Try to see it from the reporter's point of view. Greetings, Heiko

5 7

[arch-general] Resigning as a Bug Wrangler
by Gerardo Exequiel Pozzi 15 Mar '10

15 Mar '10

Hello all, my free time is over to stay in the bugtracker in this year. In few days, I will start a new caeer "math professor", I am really very happy because it's something I always wanted to study, and beyond that, I really like teaching. Besides, I work as a teacher in a secondary school in electronics labs, along with other tasks. I hope I was helpful in the short time (9 months as Bug Wrangler / 14 months as Arch User). It really was an interesting experience and I learned a lot of everything in each day. (Also a bit of english language is improved :P) I want say thanks again to Andreas Radke, who at the time, offered me to be in the bugtracker (Secret: In fact, I bothered him via messenger asking him to allocate the multiple tickets that I was opening every day, hehehe :P), thanks for trust in me, and thanks all those who make Arch Linux more and more better :) @Roman: 's/Bug Wranglers/Reporters/' @Dieter: I will stay in these places if you need help in what I can do to archiso-2010.03 Good luck \forall ;) -- Gerardo Exequiel Pozzi ( djgera ) http://www.djgera.com.ar KeyID: 0x1B8C330D Key fingerprint = 0CAA D5D4 CD85 4434 A219 76ED 39AB 221B 1B8C 330D

16 37

[arch-general] newsbeuter 2.2 PKGBUILD (diff)
by Kitty 14 Mar '10

14 Mar '10

Hi all, Here's the diff to update newsbeuter to 2.2, it's a fresh release, as of this morning. It builds and installs. ------------------- --- /home/kitty/Downloads/PKGBUILD(2) 2010-03-14 10:19:35.533972938 -0700 +++ PKGBUILD 2010-03-14 10:09:43.734084982 -0700 @@ -3,7 +3,7 @@ # Contributor: Sven Pfleiderer <pfleidi(a)roothausen.de> pkgname=newsbeuter -pkgver=2.1 +pkgver=2.2 pkgrel=1 pkgdesc="A RSS feed reader for the text console with special Podcast support" arch=('i686' 'x86_64') @@ -17,7 +17,7 @@ source=(http://www.newsbeuter.org/downloads/$pkgname-$pkgver.tar.gz \ $pkgname-archlinux.patch) -md5sums=('f732bb0302b44a3723dea81e81804fb9' +md5sums=('2add1dfe8d3684e67ab75f0c5172c705' 'b92a7ef0e458b5dee15af01bfdf1f383') build() { -- Kitty

1 0

[arch-general] Something really wrong with yum-createrepo from AUR - doesn't work.
by David C. Rankin 13 Mar '10

13 Mar '10

Guys, The yum-createrepo package seems not to be the same as the createrepo package that you normally see. Specifically executing the yum-createrepo script with the help option discloses: [13:35 nirvana:/home/backup/rpms] # createrepo --help Usage: genpkgmetadata.py [options] Options: --version show program's version number and exit -h, --help show this help message and exit -q, --quiet output nothing except for serious errors -v, --verbose output more debugging info. <snip> Huh?? Usage: genpkgmetadata.py [options] genpkgmetadata.py is part of createrepo, but the expected output is: 13:38 nemesis:~> createrepo --help createrepo [options] directory-of-packages Options: -u, --baseurl <url> = optional base url location for all files -o, --outputdir <dir> = optional directory to output to -x, --exclude = files globs to exclude, can be specified multiple times -q, --quiet = run quietly The AUR package doesn't seem to be looking for the correct input. You can't create or update a repository without specifying where the repository is?? However, the packages do share many of the same options "-p pretty, -d create sqlite dbs, etc..", but regardless, running the yum-createrepo from AUR fails: [13:41 nirvana:/home/backup/rpms] # createrepo --update -d factory_11.0/ Traceback (most recent call last): File "/usr/share/createrepo/genpkgmetadata.py", line 249, in <module> main(sys.argv[1:]) File "/usr/share/createrepo/genpkgmetadata.py", line 223, in main mdgen.doPkgMetadata() File "/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/createrepo/__init__.py", line 367, in doPkgMetadata self.writeMetadataDocs(packages) File "/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/createrepo/__init__.py", line 531, in writeMetadataDocs self.primaryfile.write(po.xml_dump_primary_metadata()) File "/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/yum/packages.py", line 1082, in xml_dump_primary_metadata msg += misc.to_unicode(self._dump_format_items()) File "/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/yum/packages.py", line 967, in _dump_format_items msg += self._dump_requires() File "/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/yum/packages.py", line 1022, in _dump_requires mylist = self._requires_with_pre() File "/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/yum/packages.py", line 1278, in _requires_with_pre pre = map(self._is_pre_req, lst) File "/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/yum/packages.py", line 1268, in _is_pre_req rpm.RPMSENSE_SCRIPT_PRE | AttributeError: 'module' object has no attribute 'RPMSENSE_PREREQ' Anybody have an idea what is going on? I think if the errors are corrected it will work, but I'm nut sure the PKGCONFIG is putting all the pieces together correctly. I guess I'll try just putting the package together from source and compare what is going on, but if anybody has any ideas, I would welcome the input and help. -- David C. Rankin, J.D.,P.E. Rankin Law Firm, PLLC 510 Ochiltree Street Nacogdoches, Texas 75961 Telephone: (936) 715-9333 Facsimile: (936) 715-9339 www.rankinlawfirm.com

2 3

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] Allow comments on closed bugs?
by Heiko Baums 13 Mar '10

13 Mar '10

Am Sat, 13 Mar 2010 10:58:24 +0100 schrieb Pierre Schmitz <pierre(a)archlinux.de>: > Yes, there are sometimes situations where I wanted to add a more or > less important comment to a bug reports but it was just closed. > > In the other hand I see the problems of never ending discussions and > flame wars. In other bug trackers I haven't seen never ending discussions and flame wars on closed bugs, yet. Sometimes long discussions happen on open bugs, but usually in a factual manner, and usually there's a reason for this, because it's a controversial issue. If a comment is written on a closed bug it's just to give some more details, because the fix is not quite sufficient or could be made still better or the like. And in cases in which it's possible to reopen a bug directly without sending a request, I also haven't seen exploitations. Usually the bug is reopened once or twice to give another argument or another aspect. But then it's alright. How many bug reports are actually invalid because of an imperfect knowledge or (search) laziness of the reporter? How many bug reports are of the type Aaron Griffin has mentioned before (Feature request, closed as "won't implement", reopend with "but it's a good feature", denied with "we won't implement this, wait for upstream", reopened, denied)? Are there really so many of them? I have my doubts. Or is this more the developer's fear that this could happen? And as I've written in other e-mails, don't see only your developer's point of view. See also the user's and reporter's point of view and how a certain bug handling (early closings, forcing reopening requests (begging), etc.) is or at least can be received by the user/reporter. Btw., comments on closed bugs is more or less a minor issue. The bigger issue is the early bug closing. ;-) Heiko

4 3