- Arch-general - lists.archlinux.org

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] Adding !staticlibs to our default makepkg.conf
by Hussam Al-Tayeb 29 May '13

29 May '13

On Wednesday 29 May 2013 11:31:11 Allan McRae wrote: > We discussed removing static libraries for most packages back in March [1]. > > Now makepkg for pacman-4.1 has an option "staticlibs" that automatically > removes them. Should I make that the default in our makepkg.conf? > > Allan > > > [1] > https://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/2013-March/024552.ht > ml Why not check first which applications build with --disable-static? A few packages like libpng, etc.. can be compiled with --disable-static which feels like a more neat approach then deleting the static libraries.

2 1

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] Finishing the /usr move
by Paul Gideon Dann 29 May '13

29 May '13

On Wednesday 29 May 2013 18:13:01 Allan McRae wrote: > Yes - /sbin, /usr/sbin and /bin will all point at /usr/bin. So > hardcoded paths will not matter. Only file locations will. Just a little curious: does someone know what the reason is that we're moving everything to /usr/bin instead of /bin? Is there any significant advantage nowadays to having a separate /usr? I can understand a separate /home, /srv, or /var far more... Paul

2 2

[arch-general] Perl 5.18 in [testing]
by Florian Pritz 28 May '13

28 May '13

Hi, Perl 5.18, as any other new perl version, requires all modules that are not purely perl code to be rebuilt. We did that for all packages in our repos. For a list of upstream changes please refer to `man perldelta`. Since users probably installed some from AUR or with CPANPLUS::Dist::Arch, I wrote a script[1] that generates a local rebuild list. [1]: http://git.server-speed.net/bin/plain/find-broken-perl-packages.sh - raw.txt contains a list of files that generated an error - perl-modules.txt contains a list of modules the files belong to - perl-dists.txt contains a list of distributions - pacman.txt contains a list of pacman packages the files belong to Binaries linking with libperl.so will also need to be rebuilt. You can use lddd from devtools to find those. Please report any issue you encounter.

3 5

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] [RFC] Bluez 5
by Karol Babioch 26 May '13

26 May '13

Hi Tom, Am 13.05.2013 18:02, schrieb Tom Gundersen: > I would like to push Bluez 5 to the repos, and rename Bluez 4 to > 'bluez4'. Some things still require Bluez 4, and the two can not be > installed together, so this is how I propose to do it. > Any objections? I'm quite interested in Bluez 5 and would like to have it running as soon as possible ;). Any updates on the progress of your RFC? Do you have a list of applications currently not ready to work with Bluez 5 and still requiring Bluez 4 and its API? Best regards, Karol Babioch

2 2

[arch-general] Find out the changes that has done
by Gopalakrishnan NavaneethaKannan 23 May '13

23 May '13

Hi, I was trying to find out the content of a file has been modified. Basically two three peoples are keep on changing the file. And I want to know who has changes and what content has been modified. I tried find command, but again it shows only "find . -mmin -60" and "find . -cmin -60" but its listing out only the files that has changed not the contents. Also I tried auditd but again its not in user readable format. Any other way to see the files that has changed also the content that modified. Basically I want to maintain the changelog for future reference. Regards, Gopal. The information contained in this communication is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and others authorized to receive it. It may contain confidential or legally privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by responding to this email and then delete it from your system. iOPEX technologies is neither liable for the proper and complete transmission of the information contained in this communication nor for any delay in its receipt.

2 1

[arch-general] Building packages from AUR/ABS
by Joaquin Villanova 22 May '13

22 May '13

Hi, I've built Firefox 21 using Firefox 20 PKGBUILD, changing versions and reading the README notes on the source tarball, just for try. Should i expect any issue when installing? Is this a good method for a general purpose upgrading / downgrading? I mean, I can wait for this package because is in the extra repo, and is widely use and i know is going to be updated ASAP, but it should be good to know for other packages from AUR, or the main repos that doesn't get updated or get unmaintained. PD: I always flag packages that i found out of date! :)

3 2

[arch-general] Arch Linux Community on Gittip
by Karol Blazewicz 22 May '13

22 May '13

http://archlinux.me/dusty/2013/05/21/arch-linux-community-on-gittip/ Does this initiative have the Uber Archers blessing? Does it need one? I recall that there were issues regarding the official Google+ page even though it was started by an Arch dev, the info was posted on the forums https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=129923 and things seemed OK.

2 1

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] Dropping compiz?
by Bjoern Franke 21 May '13

21 May '13

> > And done. > Shouldn't emerald be dropped, too? -- xmpp bjo(a)schafweide.org bjo.nord-west.org | nord-west.org | freifunk-ol.de

2 1

[arch-general] Arch mailing list for subjective discussions
by Ralf Mardorf 19 May '13

19 May '13

Hallo, IMO the moderated Arch general list became a good list for technically issues and for briefly and succinctly objective discussions. This shouldn't change. First I didn't like it, but now I can see the advantages of such a list. What IMO is missing for Arch Linux is a separated mailing list for longer, subjective discussions. I'm aware that this is possible using the forums, but for my taste a mailing list is more comfortable to use. I wonder if there's an interest for such a mailing list and if somebody has got the knowledge and is willing to set up such a mailing list. The international Debian mailing list is free for longer, subjective discussions, but there anyway is a separated list, for completely off topic discussions. http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic There's no need to have a list for absolutely OT discussions for Arch Linux, as there is for Debian, but perhaps I'm not the only one who does like to get an Arch Linux mailing list for longer, subjective discussions. This comes into my mind, when I read a statement about the policy of Mint, thread: "Fully wroking GTK3(+GTK2) theme for Gnome 3.8?" E.g. desktop environments require sometimes discussions that IMO don't belong to Arch general, but there perhaps is the need to compare notes. What do you think about an additional mailing list for discussions that are OT for Arch generell? Regards, Ralf

7 9

Re: [arch-general] Arch mailing list for subjective discussions
by phani 19 May '13

19 May '13

On Sun, 19 May 2013 18:29:48 +0530, Ralf Mardorf <ralf.mardorf(a)alice-dsl.net> wrote: > I agree that fragmentation would be self-defeating. If you would be > willing to host a "real" list, free from Google, it would be great :). > Goggle IMO is a cut both ways thingy. apart from privacy issues, googlel groups isn't a real mailing list. i do manage one, and i hate that it's interface encourages people to use HTML and senseless quoting. i would use GNU's mailman, unless somebody else has a better idea. and i'm still not sure that another mailing list really is a good idea, because simply by existing it would contribute to fragmentation of the available knowledge base. [sorry for the unintended private reply earlier.] -- phani.

1 0