June 2012 - Arch-general - lists.archlinux.org

[arch-general] virtualbox-bin aur - vboxdrv -> dkms -> confusion...
by David C. Rankin 07 Jun '12

07 Jun '12

Guys, I just updated virtualbox-bin from aur to 4.1.16 and I'm confused by the drop of the /etc/rc.d/vboxdrv init script. After building and installing the package I received the warning: ==> **Warning** ==> This version drop vboxdrv initscript. ==> Please change to dkms instead of vboxdrv in DAEMONS in rc.conf. ==> So I read the https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Virtualbox that explained the switch to dkms allows auto-generation of the virtualbox module on kernel update, but didn't really help me understand what I need to do to manually rebuild the vboxdrv module. The wiki references a 'vboxbuild' that does not exist in the virtualbox-bin package from aur. So how do I rebuild the module manually in this case? Also, since I don't really want the module autogenerated, do I even need dkms in the DAEMONS line of rc.conf? What I want to do is just leave MODULES=(vboxdrv), but I need to know how to build the module? What say the experts? I know I'm missing something simple, I just want to make sure I can build the module when I need to. Thanks. -- David C. Rankin, J.D.,P.E.

5 7

[arch-general] [arch-dev-public] Re: [RFC] another base cleanup
by Nicolas Sebrecht 07 Jun '12

07 Jun '12

[ Erf, resending to general list. This forbidden write access to the dev list is somewhat frustrating. ] The 06/06/12, Tobias Powalowski wrote: > Well, I'm not sure if this would make life simpler, > A current x86_64 base install is 119 packages with 450MB do you still > want to fragment this? This would be sensible for some real use cases (e.g. building LXC systems, thin stations, PXE minimal systems mounting / or /usr from a remote, etc). -- Nicolas Sebrecht

1 0

[arch-general] UEFI secure boot
by Genes MailLists 07 Jun '12

07 Jun '12

Matthew Garret(Redhat) has written[1] an updated and interesting blog on this topic; which of course will impact arch too ... sharing in case anyone hasn't seen it: http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/12368.html gene/ [1] Also discussed some in fedora ML

11 18

[arch-general] Problems with registration to Flyspray
by Mateusz Loskot 06 Jun '12

06 Jun '12

Hi, First, I apologies if this is not the right place to send this post, but I couldn't find how to reach the Flyspray admins. Yesterday, I tried to register on Flyspray. I have received the confirmation e-mail, followed the confirmation steps and something weird happened. I'm neither able to login - the Flyspray says my user does not exist: http://www.flickr.com/photos/mloskot/7344490354/ nor I can restore password - username does not exist: http://www.flickr.com/photos/mloskot/7159283071/ Trying to re-register also fails - username already taken: http://www.flickr.com/photos/mloskot/7159283101/ Could the admins help me to get around this lock? Best regards, -- Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net

1 1

Re: [arch-general] UEFI secure boot
by John Briggs 06 Jun '12

06 Jun '12

On Tue, Jun 05, 2012 at 04:54:58PM -0400, Joe(theWordy)Philbrook wrote: > > It would appear that on Jun 4, Alexandre Ferrando did say: > > > On 4 June 2012 22:27, Sudaraka Wijesinghe <sudaraka.wijesinghe(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > If this is a poll, I vote "Arch should require Secure Boot to be disabled" > > > > > > I choose a distro like Arch because it doesn't have a financial motive > > > and will not give into market pressures such as this. > > > If we want keep hardware vendors from forcing Secure Boot on us, we have > > > to send the message out that we don't want it. Paying a "small" price of > > > M$99 is not the way. > > > > > > However as free software users, we will have to endure some hard time in > > > the coming days when getting new hardware. > > > > > > Just my two cents. > > > > > > Sudaraka. > > > > > > > I'd like to add something to what Sudaraka said: > > > > Arch doesn't seems to have the same kind of user than fedora, Arch if > > I don't remember it wrong, tends to be aimed for a competent user. > > Such a competent user can disable secure boot in x86 devices. (ARM > > devices doesn't seem a problem to Arch because we don't do ARM) > > And to that it appears that on Jun 5, Lukáš Jirkovský did add: > > > Assuming the Arch Users are competent, I'd rather let them add an Arch > > Linux key to UEFI without disabling Secure Boot. This way Arch would > > work with Secure Boot with added security of no one messing with > > bootloader in a harmful way. > > > Speaking as an Arch user who is just barely competent enough for Arch with > much dependence on google and Arch's most excellent wiki, I'd like to see > Arch continue to do what I see as one of it's strong points. > > Yes it insists on it's users having a certain level of competence. But it > generally seems willing to include fairly detailed step by step tutorials > and guides in it's wiki, to help those with less (or outdated) technical > expertise become more competent. > > So how about somebody who knows how to disable secure boot on x86 devices > post a good howto in the wiki (or if that would be reinventing the wheel, a > link to a good external guide.)? > > And likewise, in case some Arch user should inadvertently acquire some PC > where somehow the firmware option to disable "Secure Boot" wasn't there. How > about somebody who knows how to add an "Arch key" to UEFI, posting a wiki > tutorial for that? > > Speaking for myself, I know I wouldn't have a clue how to do either without > a good tutorial. And it's starting to sound like I'm going to have to know > how to do one or the other by the time I'm ready for new hardware... > > My current desktop is from 2005, and it hasn't shown any signs of failing > {yet}... {{Please God let me find such a tutorial when it does fail...}} > This is the arch-general mailing list not the microsoft windows mailing list so why are we discussing this?? MS Windows needs secure boot because it is subject to so many malware attacks, Arch Linux does not. Arch Linux is a miminalist distribution and each user adds his/her own customizations to their own setup. Do we want to lose this option because M$ is too lazy or does not want to do its job correctly. This is typical M$ BUMF make the user pay and screw them for all they can. Each certificate will have to be privately signed because there is no standard Arch Boot Procedure. BTW I read and understood the discussions referred to in the links to this thread. John

2 1

[arch-general] Apppearance of .pacnew files
by Geoffroy PLANQUART 06 Jun '12

06 Jun '12

Hi, I've got a question about the appearance of .pacnew files. I've got two servers running archlinux, and I did pacman's 4.0.3 upgrade on both. The first server did the upgrade as expected, creating the pacman.conf.pacnew file. The second server merge my file with the new one, without asking for anything ! So here comes my question: how is it resolved that a file must be replaced (2nd case) or created as .pacnew ? Sorry for my poor English G.

2 1

[arch-general] Pacman keys
by Guillermo Leira 05 Jun '12

05 Jun '12

For the past six months, pacman's package verification features were turned off by default while we were figuring out the details of our public-key infrastructure. They have finally been enabled in pacman-4.0.3-2; when you upgrade, you will be prompted to run: pacman-key --init pacman-key --populate archlinux _____________________________________ Hello! Is it possible to run this commands remotely (ssh)? I have tried in different machines, and all of them seem to hang after saying "gpg: Generating pacman keychain master key..." Well, it is not hanged, after almost 30 minutes I can stop it with CTRL-C, and get a "gpg: signal interrupt caught ... exiting" Best Regards, Guillermo Leira

5 6

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] adding rng-tools to extra?
by Kevin Chadwick 04 Jun '12

04 Jun '12

On Mon, 04 Jun 2012 09:47:57 +0200 Tobias Powalowski wrote: > Ok as discussed on IRC, haveged seems the better choice because > rng-tools need a real hw generator to work correct. Why not both. Multiple sources will probably increase the unpredictability and strength or reduce the effectiveness of predictability flaws (not saying there are any), which should be a factor as well. Ideally the IDE timings will be expanded to include all sorts of timings but I think that's the kernel devs not Arches remit. Maybe as this is a functional problem it may get enough attention from the kernel devs? Funnily enough a mail, though the link is quite old now just hit the OpenBSD list. _______________________________________________________________________ An interesting read for sysops and admins. The analytics indirectly validate openBSD dev's longstanding pedantic-ness regarding random-ness and entropy (thank you). http://www.h-online.com/security/news/item/RSA-keys-not-as-random-as-they-s… _______________________________________________________________________

2 3

[arch-general] /usr/bin/X: error while loading shared libraries: libudev.so.0:
by P .NIKOLIC 04 Jun '12

04 Jun '12

Hi . I have just run pacman -Suy rebooted the system and found i could not start X getting the error message /usr/bin/X: error while loading shared libraries: libudev.so.0: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory .. Someone has suggested the fixed version of X but it is not showing up having done a "pacman -Syyu no fix i have had to use the dodge suggested on the arch linux bbs of ln -s /usr/lib/libudev.so.1.0.1 /usr/lib/libudev.so.0 Yes i know it is not strictly speaking the correct thing BUT it got the system working again what i want to know is which mirror is likely to have the fixed version of X on it i can the get back to standard system . Oh i also noitced that the systemd-udev update has messed the PA sound system up Pete . -- Linux 7-of-9 3.3.7-1-ARCH #1 SMP PREEMPT Tue May 22 00:26:26 CEST 2012 x86_64 GNU/Linux

6 11

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] adding rng-tools to extra?
by Bartłomiej Piotrowski 04 Jun '12

04 Jun '12

On 06/03/2012 08:48 PM, Tobias Powalowski wrote: > Hi guys, > with enabling pacman signing, shouldn't we add the rng-tools to extra to > be able to use it on install media too? Or is there any way to generate > entropy without it and without user interaction? > > thanks > greetings > tpowa > Some time ago I added haveged to [community]. IMO it's easier to use; the only thing to do is to start haveged daemon. -- Bartłomiej Piotrowski Arch Linux Trusted User http://archlinux.org/

1 0