- Arch-general - lists.archlinux.org

[arch-general] php 7.2/ nextcloud 12.x incompatibility
by David Runge 04 Dec '17

04 Dec '17

Hey all, just a short heads up: current nextcloud (forseeable until version 13) does not work with php 7.2 (out of the box) [1]. If you're running nextcloud, you might want to delay the update of (at least) the following packages: php php-{gd,apache,sqlite,pgsql,ldap,intl,apcu,xcache,mcrypt} Best, David [1] https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/56553 -- https://sleepmap.de

2 1

[arch-general] Why was php conflict 'php-mcrypt<=7.1' added? Breaks php56-mcrypt?
by David C. Rankin 04 Dec '17

04 Dec '17

All, Why was the conflict 'php-mcrypt<=7.1' added to php? It now seeks to remove php56-mcrypt. I require both for older web apps not yet ported to php7. These packages do not conflict as I have used both for a couple of years. Now I get: :: Starting full system upgrade... resolving dependencies... looking for conflicting packages... :: php and php56-mcrypt are in conflict (php-mcrypt). Remove php56-mcrypt? [y/N] error: unresolvable package conflicts detected error: failed to prepare transaction (conflicting dependencies) :: php and php56-mcrypt are in conflict (php-mcrypt<=7.1) Does this need to be fixed in AUR or is there a better way to handle this?? -- David C. Rankin, J.D.,P.E.

2 4

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] Switching the bugtracker to Bugzilla
by William Gathoye 03 Dec '17

03 Dec '17

Hello everyone, On 11/14/2017 10:34 PM, Bartłomiej Piotrowski wrote: > On 2017-11-14 20:30, Jelle van der Waa wrote: >> Used by several big projects such as Gnome, LLVM and Mozilla > > GNOME will probably end up switching to Gitlab. (Not dismissing the fact > that bugzilla is rather popular choice.) Bugzilla is old both in terms of look and feel and usability. It doesn't even support Markdown formatting[1], which could have been nice in order to be on part with the Markdown feature brought with the forthcoming aur web version. Contributing from a mobile device is rather complicated with bugzilla, even if I know some kind of non-maintained addon is available[2]. We can't see properly the pull requests being made to solve a specific problem and I know the Bugzilla's UI doesn't encourage them (just ask the Document Foundation about it). This is why, if I was in a position to provide a vote, I would have chosen a solution like gogs or Gitlab instead, which fixes the aforementioned problems and are well-maintained. On a side note, I'm currently in the process of rewriting the Gitlab install guide on the ArchLinux wiki, because I need it for corporate purpose and according to comments on the talk page, that article is hard to understand for newcomers. In the same process, gogs/Gitlabs would allow the opportunity to migrate the svn infra used for official packages to a real git-based infrastructure. svn-to-git, even if we have 'abs' [3] as syntactic sugar, adds unneeded cluttering. The current infra for official packages is blocking new contributions (I remember the cumbersome process it was for me to push 2 fixes to openjfx, patches via email is from an old age). Also, having an infra like gogs/Gitlab could allow us to have our Github ArchLinux account becoming the official read-only mirror for Arch Linux (yet another free backup). Synchronization scripts between both systems do already exist (I can ask at The Document Foundation if needed). > >> # Migration >> >> There are several options for migrating the bug history to Bugzilla and a few options are under >> debate. (input welcome) > > As I said multiple times on IRC, I'm for starting from scratch. There > are way too many inactive or/and incorrect bugs open, and honestly any > effort to review that list is a waste of time. With no bugs open we can > 1) pretend everything works fine 2) hopefully avoid zombie-bugs > apocalypse that we have now. Flyspray could be mirrored with wget for > read-only version. When I migrate something, I don't like to have anything legacy in an infrastructure. I usually migrate everything and do not leave a publicly accessible web app, especially if the latter isn't maintained any more, and has multiple security vulnerabilities. This doesn't prevent us to keep a complete offline backup copy if needed. Migrate everything doesn't prevent us to not close old bugs either. In this regard, it would be nice to have a policy to auto-close bugs that haven't received comments/reactions within x day. Any way, if a contributor has anything to add, he could reopen it if needed. Having a more strict bug triaging policy is usually good and reminds me a recent article I read on the Gitlab.com blog[4]. Just my two cents :) Ps.: I'm writing on arch-general, because I don't have write access to arch-dev-public, I'm not a TU (yet, but my application will come in the months to come, currently getting prepared to it), I'm just a Arch Linux user/contributor and have been since 2012 actually). [1] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=330707 [2] https://wiki.mozilla.org/Bugzilla:Addons#Handheld_Clients [3] https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_Build_System#Retrieve_PKGBUILD_so… [4] https://about.gitlab.com/2017/10/26/triage-issues-gitmate/ -- William Gathoye <william(a)gathoye.be>

9 12

[arch-general] Build configuration settings for samba
by Newbugreport 03 Dec '17

03 Dec '17

My Arch server hit https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10541 in a bad way, blocking all SMB writes from my Ubuntu 17.10 client. Since the bug is unfixed, I'd like to make a custom build of smbd to get things working. My test builds of samba don't appear to match how samba is built in Arch. Where can I find documentation on how samba is build in Arch, especially configuration details?

2 1

[arch-general] pacman and journalctl
by Tom M. 02 Dec '17

02 Dec '17

ahoy there! is there some cleaver way of making pacman log to journalctl? or plans to implement such a feature? regards, t.

2 3

[arch-general] what is happening here?
by Jude DaShiell 29 Nov '17

29 Nov '17

[ 491.146655] INFO: task systemd-udevd:128 blocked for more than 120 seconds. [ 491.147874] Tainted: G C 4.13.12-1-ARCH #1 [ 491.149295] "echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/hung_task_timeout_secs" disables this message. --

2 2

[arch-general] desktop crash after upgrade
by niya 29 Nov '17

29 Nov '17

hi everyone i have a intel atom netbook that i have arch installed on and have been using it for the last couple of years without any issues, after doing a pacman -Syu recently when i reboot it gets through boot up to the point of setting up the desktop and then crashes with 2 thirds of the screen from left to right fill with a random rows of dots on a black background and the last third has my desktop with an exit icon at the bottom, i went through the process of downgrading the kernel and got it to boot normally again i thought that because it was a 32 bit computer the problem was to do with arch no longer supporting the i686 architecture so i migrated the laptop to Arch Linux 32, everything went smoothly , after the migration i rebooted the laptop and i was back with the same problem. i chrooted into the laptop with a live usb stick and retrieved a portion of the journal here,s the log. error-report <http://codepad.org/mtWYqv2N> my Desktop Environment is lxde if more of the logs are needed please let me know i would be thankful for any pointers to fixing the problem shadrock

3 2

[arch-general] AUR account creation issues
by Tegan Burns 27 Nov '17

27 Nov '17

arch-general, I was trying to register an account on aur.archlinux.org but I never received a confirmation email. I've tried to reset my password but never receive an email to do so. The email address is fine, I set up my Arch Wiki account moments before registering under AUR (confirmation and all). I was hoping to keep the same username across the forums, Wiki and AUR. At this point I don't see anything else I could do on my end. Is there a chance that an admin could look into the issue? I was instructed to post here via https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?pid=1751367 Thank you

3 3

[arch-general] GDM/Lightdm and/or Gnome will not start
by Alan E. Davis 26 Nov '17

26 Nov '17

I'll try to give some background, because I do not have a really good idea why this is happening. It seemed to start when I tried to install Adobe-Digital-Editions (ADE), so I could read an ebook borrowed from the local public library. I installed wine, and attempted to install ADE. At the end of the install process, the console went into a kind of loop, with the same message repeated over and over in rapid succession. (I did not have the presence of mind to try to record this message). This through my session into a dysfunctional state, so I rebooted. Or restarted the display manager, I don't remember. Neither GDM nor Lightdm have started again, in a number of days. I was able to start i3 and xfce4, through startx with correct lines in .xinitrc. I uninstalled wine and ADE, then recently tried again to reinstall, with the thought this experience may have been a fluke. The same exact message popped up when executing "wine install.exe". This system is in pretty decent shape. It's been up running for many months, with quite a number of packages from the pacman distros as well as AUR; I have never had a serious problem that I could not easily figure out. Arch Linux has become my goto distro, as it just works, and maintainance is not a hugely time consuming or hit and miss affair as has been my experience with Gentoo. I have now installed manjaro and redcore, on the same laptop. I have removed Fedora 26, which turned quirky after a few weeks (which I installed so I would be able to advise a friend in the case of any troubles). Manjaro is easy to install; it's nice to be able to use AUR, but even if I avoid any wrinkles, it will take days to get this installation into shape. I come to you hoping for some light to be shed on this problem. At the bare minimum I would like to generate a list of installed packages of all kinds (AUR and pacman). I truly hope, however, to find the problem, and fix it. I can copy the files in my home directory, and copy them over to a new installation. d Does this description make any sense to someone? Thank you for reading this far. Alan Davis -- [Fill in the blanks] The use of corrupt manipulations and blatant rhetorical ploys ...--- outright lying, flagwaving, personal attacks, setting up phony alternatives, misdirection, jargon-mongering, evading key issues, feigning disinterested objectivity, willful misunderstanding of other points of view---suggests that ... lacks both credibility and evidence. ---- Edward Tufte (in context of making presentations)

4 8

Re: [arch-general] Official repos package removal policies/best practices
by Štěpán Němec 20 Nov '17

20 Nov '17

On Mon, 20 Nov 2017 19:03:43 +0100 Morten Linderud wrote: > On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 06:34:11PM +0100, Štěpán Němec wrote: [...] >> 1. >> What is the best way to find rationale about package removal or old >> package logs in general? E.g. pacolog doesn't work on st any more (I >> guess the logs are removed together with the package?) and even looking >> for the message linked above felt like there should be a better way. > > Looked at the pacolog source, it acts on the branch from the git.archlinux.org > website, this is essentially useless when the package is removed from the repos > as the website goes away with it. You could search the git logs on the > git.archlinux.org page, but thats tedious. I don't know of any better way sadly. > >> 2. >> If the commit message above is the only resource to be had, is there >> some kind of best practices concerning similar commit messages? I would >> have appreciated at least a short rationale for the removal being >> included. > > I honestly don't know if there is any policy regarding this, I shared the mail > to the other TUs and I'll see what they think. However! Yes, I agree. The commit > message is horrendous and I'll do better in the future! > >> 3. >> What was the rationale in this particular case? The st-git¹ AUR package >> seems quite popular, so I was surprised to see its non-vcs version >> removed from community (I would expect the opposite to happen for >> popular packages). >> >> ¹ https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/st-git/ > > st is suppose to be compiled with your own config.h along with it. It hasn't > really had any release and after some discussion among other TUs, we decided to > drop both st and dwm for this reason. After some complaints on reddit[1] I > uploaded the old PKGBUILDs to AUR for the sake of being refferences. > > [1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/archlinux/comments/7e52e4/st_package_removed/ > > I hope this answers your questions! Thank you very much for the information! (Note to self: have to search Reddit as well next time; Google seems not to have indexed the discussion there yet, although interestingly DuckDuckGo does, now I checked...) (Readding arch-general, for some reason the headers of my original message seem not to have made it through unmangled.) -- Štěpán

2 2