September 2023 - Arch-general - lists.archlinux.org

Arch Mailing List queries
by Polarian 16 Sep '23

16 Sep '23

Hello, So I have two things I would like to address which I have realised: Firstly is the fact that Arch Linux almost always picks IPv4 over IPv6 when delivery the mail. I am aware this is not a big issue because I still receive the email but Arch Linux has full support for IPv6, and I would like to have it used (especially for the hope in the future we can all use single stack IPv6 and get rid of legacy IPv4). I believe this is not an issue with Arch Linux, but the mailing list software used (which I believe is mailman). I have discussed the same issue with the Gajim developers on XMPP. I believe GNU mailman uses Happy Eyeballs (like which Gajim uses) (more info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Eyeballs), which when I test it on my network for about 200-300 attempts, IPv6 is picked 299/300 of the times, so I should be seeing almost always IPv6, but I get the opposite. I assume GNU mailman uses the GNU python network library (forgot what it is called) which contains a Happy Eyeballs implementation (the same one Gajim uses). So there is a strong likelihood that it is an issue with the library being biased towards picking IPv4 over IPv6, because I do not have this issue with any other software. So this is not something which Arch is responsible for, but if anyone has more information about this, I would be grateful to be given it :) I did think for a while I had setup IPv6 incorrectly, but when I see Microsoft delivering emails solely over IPv6 (not a single use of IPv4), I do not believe it is an issue on my end, but correct me if I am wrong :D The second issue I want to bring up is the issue of gmail (and also sometimes outlook emails) spamming my emails. I have a few thoughts on this: - Google employs IP whitelisting, my email server is small and thus is suspicious, other small email servers know the going trend of "it being impossible to stay out of gmail spam folders", even legitimate emails from big companies sometimes end up in gmail spam, so for those who keep complaining about my emails being put into your spam, it is not an issue on my end, I have checked numerous times. - DKIM signatures are broken in transit, and depending on how the spam filter classifies something as spam, it could be picked up as a incorrect DKIM signature and thus spammed instantly, I will use David Rankin's email from this morning as a reference for this (https://lists.archlinux.org/archives/list/arch-general@lists.archlinux.org/…) Here are the relevant headers: Received: from mail.polarian.dev by email with LMTP id +Pw5ALfTAmV1LwAAotfoXQ (envelope-from <arch-general-bounces(a)lists.archlinux.org>) for <polarian@localhost>; Thu, 14 Sep 2023 09:34:47 +0000 Received: from lists.archlinux.org (lists.archlinux.org [IPv6:2a01:4f9:c010:9eb4::1]) by mail.polarian.dev (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9B5AB10A0772 for <polarian(a)polarian.dev>; Thu, 14 Sep 2023 09:34:46 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.polarian.dev; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=gmail.com header.i=(a)gmail.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=20221208 header.b=S2HFsXca Received: from lists.archlinux.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by lists.archlinux.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD29AF4E9A0; Thu, 14 Sep 2023 09:34:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-oo1-xc35.google.com (mail-oo1-xc35.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::c35]) by lists.archlinux.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3AC84F4E993 for <arch-general(a)lists.archlinux.org>; Thu, 14 Sep 2023 09:34:20 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: lists.archlinux.org; dkim=pass header.d=gmail.com header.s=20221208 header.b=S2HFsXca; spf=pass (lists.archlinux.org: domain of drankinatty(a)gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:4864:20::c35 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=drankinatty(a)gmail.com; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=gmail.com Received: by mail-oo1-xc35.google.com with SMTP id 006d021491bc7-57355a16941so450114eaf.2 for <arch-general(a)lists.archlinux.org>; Thu, 14 Sep 2023 02:34:20 -0700 (PDT) Sorry for the bad formatting, and apologies to David Rankin for using your email headers as a reference, but I assume its fine because it was posted to a public mailing list which we can already see, its public information, but if you do mind, I am sorry. The bottom hop is just google hopping the email between their servers, but once it hits lists.archlinux.org you can see that the authentication results is that it passes both spf and dkim, also I would like to draw attention to the fact that it was delivered to the mailing list via IPv6, which does show that IPv6 is definitely functioning on Arch's end. It is then hopped to my mail server, this was the only email which I have so far which was hopped to me via IPv6, so I was amazed when I saw it, so it definitely seems to be a issue with Happy Eyeballs. Anyways back to the topic, the signature then fails dkim validation (Yes I do not currently check spf, ip address spoofing is trivial compared to cryptographic signing and thus I was lazy and haven't yet bothered (its been over a year since my current mail server was configured :P). I assume that Google with their strict (and pointless) spam filter, sees that their mail server has failed to validate dkim and spams said email. I know I am not the only person being spammed too, I have seen other people being informed "hey your email was spammed for me", and 9 times out of 10 its those who self host, and thus are less known. Welcome to Googles dictatorship on email. I believe people running rspamd picks up that further down the hop chain it was valid, and thus takes that into account possibly, because I haven't heard people struggling to pass rspamd filtering. The reason for me bringing this up is getting an email every time I post to a mailing list from 3 different people complaining how google spammed my emails is a pain, and heres the kicker, half the time DKIM is valid and half the time it is broken when hopping through lists.archlinux.org, so wrap your ahead around that one! If you are getting legitimate emails spammed, then you either need to relax your email spam filter, or simply get used to checking your spam often to pull legitimate emails out. Personally I do not employ a spam filter, because just the likelihood of a legitimate email being spammed or bounced is a bad idea in my mind. As people complain about my email length, I will give a TL;DR: - Arch Linux (or GNU mailman) seems to have issues when it comes to picking between IPv4 and IPv6. - DKIM signatures are randomly broken when passing through lists.archlinux.org - If emails from the mailing list are being spammed, it might be wise to relax your spam settings, as even fully verified emails can be spammed from companies like google simply because their AI doesn't like the content of said email, or their IP whitelist doesn't include the sender. Maybe I should start putting a TL;DR at the top of every email? and then below that is the usual email with all the context and explanation. If someone thinks this is a good idea let me know (any way for me to annoy people less is a good thing :P) Any advice on how to improve (or hopefully fix) the two above issues would be highly appreciated. Take care, -- Polarian GPG signature: 0770E5312238C760 Website: https://polarian.dev JID/XMPP: polarian(a)icebound.dev

6 6

I am unable to upgrade my system today
by Łukasz Michalski 15 Sep '23

15 Sep '23

Hi, I tried to pacman -Suy today and it failed: (42/42) checking keys in keyring [##############################################################################################] 100% warning: Public keyring not found; have you run 'pacman-key --init'? downloading required keys... error: keyring is not writable error: keyring is not writable error: keyring is not writable error: keyring is not writable error: keyring is not writable error: keyring is not writable error: keyring is not writable error: keyring is not writable error: required key missing from keyring error: failed to commit transaction (unexpected error) Errors occurred, no packages were upgraded. Then I checked database with pacman-key: [root@archdevel ~]# pacman-key --list-sigs ==> ERROR: You do not have sufficient permissions to read the pacman keyring. ==> Use 'pacman-key --init' to correct the keyring permissions. [root@archdevel ~]# pacman-key --init ==> Generating pacman master key. This may take some time. gpg: Generating pacman keyring master key... gpg: revocation certificate stored as '/etc/pacman.d/gnupg/openpgp-revocs.d/A99B568F9C124056C01DEBFAE33864D7C9C3D4FB.rev' gpg: Done ==> Updating trust database... gpg: public key of ultimately trusted key 489992F0B03F986A not found gpg: marginals needed: 3 completes needed: 1 trust model: pgp gpg: depth: 0 valid: 2 signed: 0 trust: 0-, 0q, 0n, 0m, 0f, 2u ==> ERROR: Trust database could not be updated. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Is this a root of my problem? [root@archdevel ~]# gpg --homedir /etc/pacman.d/gnupg --list-keys gpg: WARNING: unsafe permissions on homedir '/etc/pacman.d/gnupg' /etc/pacman.d/gnupg/pubring.kbx ------------------------------- pub rsa4096 2014-11-04 [SC] 5C81C9D6C8D7475DF65A0C884FE7F4FEAC8EBE67 uid [ unknown] Justin Kromlinger <hashworks(a)archlinux.org [a lot of entries....] Then I tried again: [root@archdevel ~]# pacman -Suy -v Root : / Conf File : /etc/pacman.conf DB Path : /var/lib/pacman/ Cache Dirs: /var/cache/pacman/pkg/ Hook Dirs : /usr/share/libalpm/hooks/ /etc/pacman.d/hooks/ Lock File : /var/lib/pacman/db.lck Log File : /var/log/pacman.log GPG Dir : /etc/pacman.d/gnupg/ Targets : None :: Synchronizing package databases... core is up to date extra is up to date community is up to date multilib is up to date :: Starting full system upgrade... resolving dependencies... looking for conflicting packages... Packages (41) btrfs-progs-6.5.1-1 chromium-117.0.5938.62-1 cmake-3.27.5-1 code-1.82.0-2 containerd-1.7.6-1 curl-8.3.0-1 dotnet-host-7.0.11.sdk111-1 dotnet-runtime-7.0.11.sdk111-1 dotnet-sdk-7.0.11.sdk111-1 dotnet-targeting-pack-7.0.11.sdk111-1 ffmpeg-2:6.0-10 filelight-23.08.1-1 firefox-117.0.1-1 ghostscript-10.02.0-1 glib2-2.78.0-2 graphviz-9.0.0-1 kompare-23.08.1-1 lib32-curl-8.3.0-1 lib32-glib2-2.78.0-2 lib32-libtiff-4.6.0-1 libarchive-3.7.2-1 libimagequant-4.2.1-1 libkomparediff2-23.08.1-1 liblouis-3.27.0-1 libportal-0.7-1 libportal-gtk3-0.7-1 libreoffice-fresh-7.6.1-1 librsvg-2:2.57.0-1 libtiff-4.6.0-1 libwebp-1.3.2-1 linux-6.5.3.arch1-1 linux-headers-6.5.3.arch1-1 linux-lts-6.1.53-1 linux-lts-headers-6.1.53-1 netstandard-targeting-pack-7.0.11.sdk111-1 nvidia-535.104.05-6 python-gobject-3.46.0-1 python-sphinx-7.2.6-1 qt5-script-5.15.15-1 qt5-webengine-5.15.15-1 sqlite-3.43.1-1 Total Installed Size: 2583.28 MiB Net Upgrade Size: -0.07 MiB :: Proceed with installation? [Y/n] y (41/41) checking keys in keyring [##############################################################################################] 100% downloading required keys... :: Import PGP key 771DF6627EDF681F, "Tobias Powalowski <tpowa(a)archlinux.org>"? [Y/n] y :: Import PGP key 3B94A80E50A477C7, "Jan Alexander Steffens (heftig) <heftig(a)archlinux.org>"? [Y/n] y :: Import PGP key 6D42BDD116E0068F, "Christian Hesse <eworm(a)archlinux.org>"? [Y/n] y :: Import PGP key 94657AB20F2A092B, "Andreas Radke <andyrtr(a)archlinux.org>"? [Y/n] y :: Import PGP key 51E8B148A9999C34, "Evangelos Foutras <foutrelis(a)archlinux.org>"? [Y/n] y :: Import PGP key 7A4E76095D8A52E4, "Antonio Rojas <arojas(a)archlinux.org>"? [Y/n] y :: Import PGP key EA4F7B321A906AD9, "Daniel M. Capella <polyzen(a)archlinux.org>"? [Y/n] y y( 9/41) checking package integrity [###########-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------] 12(41/41) checking package integrity [##############################################################################################] 100% error: btrfs-progs: signature from "Tobias Powalowski <tpowa(a)archlinux.org>" is unknown trust :: File /var/cache/pacman/pkg/btrfs-progs-6.5.1-1-x86_64.pkg.tar.zst is corrupted (invalid or corrupted package (PGP signature)). Do you want to delete it? [Y/n] n Following wiki I tried to repopulate database: [root@archdevel ~]# pacman-key --populate ==> Appending keys from archlinux.gpg... gpg: public key of ultimately trusted key 489992F0B03F986A not found ==> Locally signing trusted keys in keyring... ==> ERROR: 2AC0A42EFB0B5CBC7A0402ED4DC95B6D7BE9892E could not be locally signed. ==> ERROR: 69E6471E3AE065297529832E6BA0F5A2037F4F41 could not be locally signed. ==> ERROR: D8AFDDA07A5B6EDFA7D8CCDAD6D055F927843F1C could not be locally signed. ==> ERROR: 91FFE0700E80619CEB73235CA88E23E377514E00 could not be locally signed. [root@archdevel ~]# pacman-key --refresh-keys gpg: key 4FE7F4FEAC8EBE67: "Justin Kromlinger <justin(a)kromlinger.eu>" not changed gpg: key 4FE7F4FEAC8EBE67: "Justin Kromlinger <justin(a)kromlinger.eu>" not changed gpg: Total number processed: 2 gpg: unchanged: 2 [lot of entries, some errors like this: ==> ERROR: Could not update key: BBE43771487328A9 gpg: error retrieving 'ibiru(a)archlinux.org' via WKD: No data gpg: error reading key: No data gpg: refreshing 1 key from hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.net gpg: keyserver refresh failed: No name ==> ERROR: Could not update key: E8F18BA1615137BC gpg: error retrieving 'jonno.conder(a)gmail.com' via WKD: No data gpg: error reading key: No data gpg: refreshing 1 key from hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.net gpg: keyserver refresh failed: No name ==> ERROR: Could not update key: AF7EF7873CFD4BB6 ...] Now I am not even able to reinstall archlinux-keyring: [root@archdevel ~]# pacman -S archlinux-keyring warning: archlinux-keyring-20230821-2 is up to date -- reinstalling resolving dependencies... looking for conflicting packages... Packages (1) archlinux-keyring-20230821-2 Total Installed Size: 1.62 MiB Net Upgrade Size: 0.00 MiB :: Proceed with installation? [Y/n] y (1/1) checking keys in keyring [##############################################################################################] 100% (1/1) checking package integrity [##############################################################################################] 100% error: archlinux-keyring: signature from "Christian Hesse <eworm(a)archlinux.org>" is unknown trust :: File /var/cache/pacman/pkg/archlinux-keyring-20230821-2-any.pkg.tar.zst is corrupted (invalid or corrupted package (PGP signature)). Do you want to delete it? [Y/n] n What could I do to fix this problem? Do I understand it right that ths is a problem with pacman-key --init ? Regards, Łukasz

2 2

Open Source Summit Europe
by Jedisocialist 14 Sep '23

14 Sep '23

Im wondering if any one else is attending or will be in Bilbao, Spain the week of September 18-22 for the Open Source Summit. If so, I could arrange a social meet-up for all interested. Cheers! Kellen Smith Sent from ProtonMail mobile

1 0

Haupauge TV card failed on kernel 6.5.2-arch1-1
by pete 11 Sep '23

11 Sep '23

Hi folks Just run my normal daily "pacman -Syu" update rebooted to see the below message flash past the tv card was perfect less than 3 minuets earlier i had been watching it . failing symbol_get of non-GPLONLY symbol cx22702_attach. [ 20.746259] DVB: Unable to find symbol cx22702_attach() [ 20.746300] cx88_dvb: frontend initialization failed [ 20.746333] cx88_dvb: dvb_register failed (err = -22) system is as follows Operating System: Arch Linux KDE Plasma Version: 5.27.7 KDE Frameworks Version: 5.109.0 Qt Version: 5.15.10 Kernel Version: 6.5.2-arch1-1 (64-bit) Graphics Platform: X11 Processors: 8 × AMD FX-8370E Eight-Core Processor Memory: 15.6 GiB of RAM Graphics Processor: HAWAII Manufacturer: Gigabyte Technology Co., Ltd. if you need more let me know i would like to get this TV card back i use it a lot it is my TV . Thanks Pete

4 7

archinstall log file
by Jude DaShiell 09 Sep '23

09 Sep '23

archinstall failed and when I ran archinstall I ran: archinstall 2>&1 | tee archinstall.log. Since the file is about 10,000 lines long I think what I ought to do is make another shorter file using grep containing only the bugs before posting that smaller file. I used the Installation_guide script after having made lynx screen reader accessible and got up to installing grub but couldn't figure out what to do after that to finish the system installation. The iso file verified with sq verify --signer-cert release-key.pgp --detached archlinux-2023-09.01-x86_64.iso.sig archlinux-2023.09.01-x86_64.iso As important, the installer came up talking. -- Jude <jdashiel at panix dot com> "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." Ed Howdershelt 1940.

1 0

swaywm, closing and opening of laptop lid connects to wrong wifi station
by Morten Bo Johansen 08 Sep '23

08 Sep '23

Hi, I have a wifi router and an extender/repeater. I connect to the extender's station to get the best signal, but when I close the lid on my laptop and then open it again, wifi resumes with a connection to my router's station, thereby losing about 30% signal strength so I need to manually disconnect from it and connect to the extender. I can't figure out where this happens. It is not in my sway config file and it doesn't seem to be in /etc/logind.conf either. Does anybody know how to configure this properly? Thanks, Morten

4 5

Disregard - nextcloud - fresh install on php-legacy, wiki followed - "Log in to Nextcloud" fails?
by David C. Rankin 06 Sep '23

06 Sep '23

Uugh, Never fails, the default is 'admin' and the password is the admin password (duh) not the database password.. Works fine! -- David C. Rankin, J.D.,P.E.

1 0

nextcloud - fresh install on php-legacy, wiki followed - "Log in to Nextcloud" fails?
by David C. Rankin 06 Sep '23

06 Sep '23

All, I have a new nextcloud installed, I followed https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Nextcloud. Everything is configured per the wiki aside from cache. Nextcloud is accessed in its own directory /nextcloud. Pointing a browser to https://localhost/nextcloud bring up the nextcloud login just fine. However, I expected the set admin dialog like is shown in the nextcloud documentation under quickstart. The install is long and I may have missed something -- but when nextcloud is asking for the "Account name or email" and "Password" -- whose credentials is it wanting?? The only credentials provided so far are for MariaDB - which appears to be working fine. With the setup per the wiki, do I need to further configure something to be prompted with the first-login box to set an admin user and password, or is this something I should have read further about configuring users with occ? The log tells me: {"reqId":"<snipped>","level":2,"time":"2023-09-06T20:14:23+00:00","remoteAddr":"127.0.0.1","user":"--","app":"no app in context","method":"POST","url":"/nextcloud/login","message":"Login failed: admin (Remote IP: 127.0.0.1)","userAgent":"Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/102.0","version":"27.0.2.1","data":[]} Which just looks like nextcloud has no clue who 'admin' and trying my user name resulted in the same log message for me. What did I miss? -- David C. Rankin, J.D.,P.E.

1 0

got verified archlinux iso
by Jude DaShiell 02 Sep '23

02 Sep '23

The website may need a little correction: sq verify --signer-file probably should read: sq verify --signer-cert release-key.pgp --detached archlinux-2023.09.01-x86_64.iso.sig archlinux-2023.09.01-x86_64.iso I had to upgrade debian to bookworm for all of these sq commands to work. wkd isn't available in bullseye. -- Jude <jdashiel at panix dot com> "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." Ed Howdershelt 1940.

1 0

Waterfox G
by Aaron Liu 02 Sep '23

02 Sep '23

Currently, there are 2 packages for the latest Waterfox "current": waterfox-g-bin and waterfox-current-bin . My guess is as follows: This arose from Waterfox changing their versions from "current" to "G", short for "generation". hawkeye116477, the maintainer for the former package and former maintainer for the latter package, decided to create a new package, waterfox-g-bin, for later releases and keep waterfox-current-bin frozen at the last release with "current". However, MarsSeed orphaned waterfox-current-bin through [PRQ#42365] in June and Leo Izen claimed it and updated it to the latest Waterfox G. The current situation is that Waterfox refers to "Waterfox G" as simply "Waterfox" and both bin packages have the wrong name. What should be done? Also, is it necessary to have both gtk3 and gtk2 as dependencies? Looking at the PKGBUILDs the only difference between the packages is waterfox-g-bin disables automatic updates + update notifications and has the extra profile manager desktop action while waterfox-current-bin has none of these and has the extra dependency "nss" (is this necessary?) P.S.: I've Bcc'd everybody I've named in this email. I'm new to the AUR, so tell me if that's not the right thing to do.

3 4