May 2016 - Arch-general - lists.archlinux.org

[arch-general] Kick vtk6 to rebuild?
by Elvis Stansvik 23 May '16

23 May '16

Hi folks, The vtk6 package in [community] (unmaintained) currently has Python extensions which link against libhdf5.so.10 (for example /opt/vtk6/lib/python2.7/site-packages/vtk/vtkIOAMRPython.so). The package should have had a dependency on hdf5. The hdf5 library has had a so version bump since vtk6 was built (libhdf5.so.10 -> libhdf5.so.100). Would it be possible to just give the vtk6 package a kick it to rebuild, so that the package in [community] can keep working for a little longer? It'll probably work fine if it's just re-built. I unfortunately don't have time to take over the maintainership of the aging vtk6. But if it's possible to just trigger a rebuild, that would be great. Thanks in advance, Elvis

1 1

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] [PATCH 1/1] move initramfs generation from install script to pacman hook
by Mauro Santos 19 May '16

19 May '16

On 19-05-2016 00:20, Sébastien Luttringer wrote: > Could we use a prefix convention to order our hooks? It's usefull to build > modules before building initramfs and eventually run grub update at the end. Not sure triggering grub update automagically is a good idea, I maintain grub.cfg myself and I'm sure more people do the same. I'd guess everyone that maintains their own grub.cfg would really appreciate not having a bad surprise after a kernel update. -- Mauro Santos

5 5

[arch-general] Problem with pacman hooks, alphabetic order.
by Carsten Feuls 19 May '16

19 May '16

Hello Everybody, I have some trouble with pacman hooks. Arch is going to use pacman hooks in every package. etckeeper was one of the first package that use pacman hooks, without any trouble. But now it becomes more tricky to run. My Problem is that the pacman hooks run in alphabetic order. And not in a Prirority order. Here is an example: [2016-05-13 23:49] [PACMAN] starting full system upgrade [2016-05-13 23:49] [ALPM] running 'etckeeper-pre-install.hook'... [2016-05-13 23:49] [ALPM] transaction started [2016-05-13 23:49] [ALPM] upgraded ca-certificates-utils (20150402-1 -> 20160507-1) [2016-05-13 23:49] [ALPM] upgraded ca-certificates-mozilla (3.23-3 -> 3.23-4) [2016-05-13 23:49] [ALPM] upgraded ca-certificates-cacert (20140824-2 -> 20140824-3) [2016-05-13 23:49] [ALPM] upgraded ca-certificates (20150402-1 -> 20160507-1) [2016-05-13 23:49] [ALPM] upgraded glib2 (2.48.0-2 -> 2.48.1-1) [2016-05-13 23:49] [ALPM] upgraded gnupg (2.1.12-1 -> 2.1.12-2) [2016-05-13 23:49] [ALPM] upgraded nss (3.23-3 -> 3.23-4) [2016-05-13 23:49] [ALPM] transaction completed [2016-05-13 23:49] [ALPM] running 'check_pacfile.hook'...<<< My Own hook [2016-05-13 23:49] [ALPM] running 'etckeeper-post-install.hook'... [2016-05-13 23:49] [ALPM] running 'sync.hook'... <<< My Own hook [2016-05-13 23:49] [ALPM] running 'texinfo-install.hook'... [2016-05-13 23:49] [ALPM] running 'update-ca-trust.hook'... In this log output we can see that etckeeper-post-install.hook is run before texinfo-install.hook and update-ca-trust.hook. This is problematic because update-ca-trust.hook has update the /etc/ssl/certs/java/cacerts but this file was not commited by the etckeeper-post-install.hook because it is run to early. The hooks run in alpabetic order. I have tested to rename the etckeeper-post-install.hook to "99-etckeeper-post- install.hook" but it does not help, because numbers run before characters. How this problem could be solved? Yes I know I can number every hook but I prefer a more upstream solution.. Sincerly Yours Carsten Feuls

4 5

Re: [arch-general] arch-general Digest, Vol 139, Issue 15
by Information Technology Works 17 May '16

17 May '16

On 05/17/2016 11:16 AM, arch-general-request(a)archlinux.org wrote: > I started some preliminary work with Levente, and first indications are that we should see very little in terms of performance impact. I have begun work on an automated testing framework, which will be located here: https://github.com/pid1/test-sec-flags > > Ideally, we will automatically use various combinations of flags, and log the benchmarks of each for later comparison. > > Patches welcome. > > Cheers, > pid1 great! I'll have my ears on. full aslr would be a big deal for arch and it's users. thanks, ITwrx

1 0

Re: [arch-general] arch-general Digest, Vol 139, Issue 14
by Information Technology Works 17 May '16

17 May '16

On 05/17/2016 07:00 AM, arch-general-request(a)archlinux.org wrote: > In the past there has been various (performance) reasons with gcc5 that > hold up stepping further, so the decision was to not backport gcc6 > patches and wait for gcc6 so arrive. Fortunately gcc6 arrived so the > topic landed again on the tables for discussion. The current state is > that we wanted to have some benchmarking with current (non-PIE) and PIE > enabled binaries to compare them and make sure it eliminated all > previous concerns. > > If you want to to really help pushing this topic in an official way then > the most useful and best step you could do is helping out to do those > benchmarks. > > cheers, > Levente ohh, ok. that makes sense. I would be glad to benchmark as many packages as needed, assuming someone doesn't mind telling me how it needs to be done. thanks, ITwrx

2 1

[arch-general] Kernel version in hooks
by Damjan Georgievski 17 May '16

17 May '16

Can I somehow get the kernel version from a hook invoked on the kernel package update? -- damjan

2 4

[arch-general] Fwd: Re: [arch-dev-public] Linux 4.6 enters [testing]
by Tomasz Przybył 16 May '16

16 May '16

--- Treść przekazanej wiadomości --- Temat: Re: [arch-dev-public] Linux 4.6 enters [testing] Data: Mon, 16 May 2016 21:07:38 +0200 Nadawca: Tomasz Przybył <fademind(a)gmail.com> Adresat: Public mailing list for Arch Linux development <arch-dev-public(a)archlinux.org> W dniu 16.05.2016 o 20:58, Tobias Powalowski via arch-dev-public pisze: > Hi folks, > > New kernel is in [testing], > > Binary modules which are not building: > > -nvidia series (all of them) > > -tp_smapi > > Maintainers please find patches to fix them. > > Thanks. > > greetings > > tpowa > > Hi, Disable CONFIG_STACK_VALIDATION config option against https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/3/3/437 and external modules will be build fine. NVIDIA need additional patch https://raw.githubusercontent.com/FadeMind/archpkgbuilds/master/AUR/linux-r… Reference: https://devtalk.nvidia.com/default/topic/926824/linux/364-1-2-5-won-t-compi… Regards Tomasz

2 1

[arch-general] PIE repo considerations
by Information Technology Works 16 May '16

16 May '16

i was wondering if anyone had any ideas on how one might setup unofficial user repos with all the offical arch packages but built with hardening-wrapper. presumed needs 1) download latest sources for all official arch packages. abs does this but i's rather not wait up to a day to get security updates. Why doesn't abs just sync however the repo mirrors do? 2) build all of them (with hardening-wrapper) automatically 3) auto-rebuild when arch official package gets upgraded. 4) make available as binary packages in unofficial user repo.(assuming arch doesn't want to have official aslr repos) For #1 i'm thinking asp would be nice as it grabs the latest sources but it doesn't currently have an "-all" option or similar. Assuming its dev would add it, do scripts or packages currently exist that would facilitate the other items(mainly 2 & 3 above)? ----------------------------------------------------------------- https://www.archlinux.org/packages/community/x86_64/hardening-wrapper/ https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/DeveloperWiki:Security#PIE >From what i glean from the conversation below, i think a (totally theoretical) user vote would have resulted in an affirmative on full aslr: https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/2014-December/026843.… I also don't understand the lack of discussion on something this important by other devs. one person had concerns about various things and another mentioned whether upstream would support it and that was it. I was hoping to at least hear why the wrapper method was so out of spec for arch as to warrant not supporting full aslr. I'm sure it seems obvious to those devs opposed, but not to me or possibly other end users. Also, i don't think i'm owed an explanation. I'm just saying more context for something this important would have been nice. thanks, ITwrx

2 1

[arch-general] netcdf problem after arch update
by Fulcrum 11 May '16

11 May '16

Hi all, I have two tools that use libnetcdf.so.7. They were working fine earlier. I updated Arch using the 'pacman -Syy' and 'pacman -Su'. But after the update, both the tools are giving errors: Tool1 (gasflow) error: /home/foxtrot/project/gasflow-3.0/bin/xgf2: error while loading shared libraries: libnetcdf.so.7: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory Toos2 (pyscan) error: ImportError: libnetcdf.so.7: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory 'pacman -Ss netcdf' says: extra/netcdf 4.4.1rc1-1 [installed] network Common Data Form interface for array-oriented data access and corresponding library extra/netcdf-cxx 4.2-4 [installed] NetCDF c++ bindings extra/netcdf-fortran 4.4.3-1 [installed] NetCDF fortran bindings Quick response will be highly appreciated! Fulcrum

5 8

[arch-general] Why did kernel packaging become slow?
by Abderrahman Najjar 08 May '16

08 May '16

The kernel package (linux) is constantly out of date, both in Testing & Core. Whenever a version is pushed in kernel.org, the previous stable will be still in testing. And then the (old) stable version gets pushed to core, and the next one in testing will be already old (because it's the latest stable). Such as the case right now (Core=4.5.1, testing=4.5.2. Stable on kernel.org=4.5.3) Is there a reason for such delay?

7 9