March 2020 - Arch-general - lists.archlinux.org

[arch-general] Packages "jami-gnome" and "libjamiclient" out of date
by Friedrich Strohmaier 24 Oct '20

24 Oct '20

Hi archers, Packages "jami-gnome" and "libjamiclient" are flagged out of date since 2019-11-16 / 2019-11-20. There are two new releases in place. I tried to contact the maintainer twice but nothing happened. I retrieved the maintainers (Bruno Pagani) mail adress from this mailinglist. I suspect the mails didn't ever get there. Any hints how to proceed? -- Friedrich

3 5

[arch-general] Hibernation Failure
by Paul Dann 23 Apr '20

23 Apr '20

I'm having trouble getting hibernation to work on my new Dell Inspiron 7590. It seems that the image is stored correctly (onto LUKS+LVM thin-lv), but resume fails, with the following left in the kernel logs: --- PM: Image signature found, resuming PM: resume from hibernation Freezing user space processes ... (elapsed 0.001 seconds) done. OOM killer disabled. PM: Marking nosave pages: [mem 0x00000000-0x00000fff] PM: Marking nosave pages: [mem 0x0009e000-0x0009efff] PM: Marking nosave pages: [mem 0x000a0000-0x000fffff] PM: Marking nosave pages: [mem 0x40000000-0x403fffff] PM: Marking nosave pages: [mem 0x66797000-0x66798fff] PM: Marking nosave pages: [mem 0x761f7000-0x791fefff] PM: Marking nosave pages: [mem 0x79200000-0xffffffff] PM: Basic memory bitmaps created PM: Using 3 thread(s) for decompression PM: Loading and decompressing image data (1343374 pages)... PM: Image loading progress: 0% PM: Image loading progress: 10% PM: Image loading progress: 20% PM: Image loading progress: 30% PM: Image loading progress: 40% PM: Image loading progress: 50% PM: Image loading progress: 60% PM: Image loading progress: 70% PM: Image loading progress: 80% PM: Image loading progress: 90% PM: Invalid LZO compressed length PM: Read 5373496 kbytes in 6.35 seconds (846.21 MB/s) PM: Error -1 resuming PM: Failed to load hibernation image, recovering. PM: Basic memory bitmaps freed OOM killer enabled. Restarting tasks ... done. PM: resume from hibernation failed (-1) --- And then the system boots fresh. An internet search revealed absolutely nothing about the "Invalid LZO compressed length", and I've no idea why the image would be corrupt. I'd appreciate any ideas. Paul

3 8

[arch-general] Problems with files creation / copy with Samba 4.12.x and SMB1 only device.
by fredbezies 03 Apr '20

03 Apr '20

Hello. Before all, thanks to David C. Radkin for the tweak related to SMB1 activation. After installing Samba 4.12.x, I added only this in [global] section of /etc/samba/smb.conf to get access to one of my old SMB1 only network based HDD: server min protocol = CORE client min protocol = CORE After a reboot, I got access to my share, but every single time I want to copy / create a new file, a folder is created! Of course, I cannot delete this folder. Here is an error log I had in /var/log/everything.log: Mar 31 23:28:40 fredo-arch-mate gvfsd[1096]: Kerberos auth with 'fred@WORKGROUP' (WORKGROUP\fred) to access '192.168.1.254' not possible Any idea? Thanks! -- Frederic Bezies fredbezies(a)gmail.com

2 1

[arch-general] nvidia-dkms pkgrel increase after every linux upgrade
by Amin Vakil 31 Mar '20

31 Mar '20

I have recently installed nvidia-dkms as I use linux-hardened, although I have installed linux package as well, but I always boot to linux-hardened. Anyway I've noticed that nvidia-dkms increases pkgrel everytime linux package gets upgraded, why is that so? Taken from NVIDIA wiki: Custom kernel If you are using a custom kernel, compilation of the Nvidia kernel modules can be automated with DKMS. Install the nvidia-dkms package (or a specific branch). The Nvidia module will be rebuilt after every Nvidia or kernel update thanks to the DKMS pacman hook. Correct me if I'm wrong but it doesn't mean that nvidia module will be rebuilt after kernel update thanks to the DKMS pacman hook? So why should nvidia-dkms upgrades?

4 4

[arch-general] Apache Virtual Host Connection Refused Error
by Matt Schwartz 31 Mar '20

31 Mar '20

Hello list, I have a vexing problem with an Apache Virtual Host setup. In a nutshell, I have verified that apache is listening on port 80 and I have double checked my virtual host setup. Indeed, I can reach by IP address and the connection is logged under the virtual host. However, when I try to use the domain name, I get a connection refused error. The httpd.conf file is pretty much stock with the exception of uncommenting the userdir stuff and the vhosts line at the bottom. I pretty much followed the article on the wiki. I am leaning towards a DNS issue but my domain properly resolves to the correct IP address. The IP address is 149.28.50.65. What could I have missed? # /etc/httpd/conf/extra/httpd-vhosts.conf <VirtualHost *:80> ServerAdmin webmaster(a)goblackcat.com.com DocumentRoot "/home/user/public_html" ServerName "goblackcat.com" ServerAlias "www.goblackcat.com" ErrorLog "/var/log/httpd/goblackcat.com-error_log" CustomLog "/var/log/httpd/goblackcat.com-access_log" common <Directory "/home/user/public_html"> Require all granted </Directory> </VirtualHost> #/etc/hosts 127.0.0.1 localhost ::1 localhost Thanks! Matt

4 6

Re: [arch-general] Samba is broken on stable repositories since March 28th, 2020.
by fredbezies 30 Mar '20

30 Mar '20

>On 03/29/2020 11:39 AM, fredbezies via arch-general wrote: >> Hello. >> >> Last update of samba, pushed on extra - instead of testing - is breaking >> share access. >> >> Commit: >> https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-commits/2020-March/727612.html >> >> See this thread: https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=254083 >> >> Only fix for now? Downgrading samba. >> >This is one of those rare occurrences when an update breaks critical server >functionality for some older environments. Samba 4.11 disables SMB1 by >default for the first time. I have old clients in backoffice roles that still use it. I don't know if my shares are using SMB1 protocol, but I got python errors like in this bug: https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/64537 Only real fix is to upgrade to samba 4.12.x. > >Edit /etc/samba/smb.conf and add > >client min protocol = NT1 >server min protocol = NT1 > >to the global section to restore workgroups and SMB1 No luck here: $ ls /etc/samba/ 14:03:08 private There is no /etc/smb.conf file. Archlinux needs to push Samba 4.12.x. Nothing less, nothing more. Pushing a 4 months old development version is weird. -- Frederic Bezies fredbezies(a)gmail.com

1 0

[arch-general] Brightness keys not working on laptop
by David Rosenstrauch 30 Mar '20

30 Mar '20

I can't seem to get the screen brightness up and down keys working on my laptop. (A new HP EliteBook x360 1030 G4.) Controlling the screen brightness programmatically does work. I.e., I'm able to set up mappings in my DE (XFCE) for specific key combos to call out to the "light" application and increase/decrease brightness that way. But the built-in brightness function keys (F3 and F4, without pressing fn) don't work at all. xev doesn't register any keypress when I hit those keys, and evtest always reports an unknown/wrong scan and key code: Event: time 1583360957.168127, -------------- SYN_REPORT ------------ Event: time 1583360959.602902, type 4 (EV_MSC), code 4 (MSC_SCAN), value 81 Event: time 1583360959.602902, type 1 (EV_KEY), code 465 (KEY_FN_ESC), value 1 I've been trying to debug this for several weeks now, but without success. I'm also pretty sure that I saw these keys working about 2 weeks ago. But although I've tried rolling back to versions of some key packages (e.g., kernel, libinput, and systemd) from that date range, I've not been able to get them working again. I've searched for bugs and forum posts on the issue, but haven't found anything that fixes it. I've also tried mucking with some of the suggestions at https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Map_scancodes_to_keycodes but no joy there either. I'd file a bug on this, but I have no idea which package is causing the issue. I'm fairly certain these hotkeys are controlled by the kernel hp_wmi module, and I do see some error message lines in dmesg about that: [ 5.683232] hp_wmi: query 0x4 returned error 0x5 [ 5.697112] hp_wmi: query 0x4 returned error 0x5 [ 5.704773] hp_wmi: query 0xd returned error 0x5 [ 5.730490] hp_wmi: query 0x1b returned error 0x5 But I'm not certain that those error messages are actually related to my issue, and googling on them didn't turn up anything of much relevance. Anyone have any suggestions/pointers on what might be broken here and/or how to fix? Thanks, DR

2 2

[arch-general] Samba is broken on stable repositories since March 28th, 2020.
by fredbezies 29 Mar '20

29 Mar '20

Hello. Last update of samba, pushed on extra - instead of testing - is breaking share access. Commit: https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-commits/2020-March/727612.html See this thread: https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=254083 Only fix for now? Downgrading samba. -- Frederic Bezies fredbezies(a)gmail.com

2 1

[arch-general] latest kernel update surprise
by Jude DaShiell 26 Mar '20

26 Mar '20

5.59-10 on the machine I use. I'm using a different version of linux on another disk to write this message. Strangely, both speaker-test and espeakup no longer work. The speaker-test failure would of course cover espeakup since espeakup uses sound card resources to do screen reading. Was anything done to the kernel to cause these failures? --

9 16

[arch-general] Pacman Database Signatures
by Christopher W. 25 Mar '20

25 Mar '20

Hi. The wiki states that database signatures for pacman are currently a work in progress. It's been that way for a long time, so I assume there is no "progress" happening. What is currently in the way of this much-needed security feature to be fully implemented? Right now, pacman is taking untrusted input from the internet as root. That's very bad. Most of the comments I've seen say that an attacker could hold back vulnerable packages, but this is assuming the attacker does not have bigger plans. The pacman tool is not immune to bugs in the way it parses the database files. It has no privilege separation in the download/parsing code as far as I can see (apt and others have had this for a long time) so it's really an even more dire situation. Pacman should not perform any operations as root until it has verified the signature of all files being used to install/upgrade the packages, but it currently does everything (downloading, verifying, etc) as root. I'd like to get a discussion going about how and when these two issues could be resolved so that all Arch users can be safer. Thanks.

4 7