- Arch-general - lists.archlinux.org

Arch Linux services unavailable
by Leonidas Spyropoulos 16 Aug '25

16 Aug '25

Hello, As you might be aware some of our services (AUR [0], Forums [1], main website [2]) are currently affected by a DDoS attack. We are aware of the issue and are actively working on mitigation efforts. We are working with our data center operator and various network security providers, and we are aware of the community offers to help. We appreciate your patience and will provide periodic keeping technical detail internal for security reasons. Thanks, The Arch Linux DevOps Team [0]: https://aur.archlinux.org/ [1]: https://bbs.archlinux.org/ [2]: https://archlinux.org/

1 0

AUR web site down? Can't reach aur.archlinux.org?
by David C Rankin 15 Aug '25

15 Aug '25

Devs, Don't know if there is an issue, but just tried to reach the AUR nvidia-390xx page to update status that 6.16.0 confirmed no changes required -- and I can't reach the page? I tried the main page too https://aur.archlinux.org and same result. I pinged it and got 66% packet loss. Is there a known or new issue? -- David C. Rankin, J.D.,P.E.

3 4

Proposal: Announcing VLC package split on Arch-announce
by Ameyama Izumi 13 Aug '25

13 Aug '25

Hello, The VLC package in [extra] was recently split into multiple subpackages (vlc, vlc-plugin-*, vlc-gui-*, etc.). This change adjusts dependencies, separates plugins, and alters installation paths. It affects not only VLC users but also other packages and third-party scripts that depend on VLC. This change has already caused multiple issues for me and others I know. Because the update may cause missing functionality, playback failures, or broken dependencies, and given its wide impact, I suggest posting an announcement on the Arch-announce mailing list so users are aware of the change before updating and can make necessary adjustments. Ameyama Izumi

3 3

archlinux-keyring-wkd-sync.service failed
by Łukasz Michalski 05 Aug '25

05 Aug '25

Today archlinux-keyring-wkd-sync.service failed on all my servers: Aug 05 18:00:00 universe archlinux-keyring-wkd-sync[138804]: Refreshing key 262A58EC6C51F7EA395B2E2DFDC3040B92ACA748 with UID antiz(a)archlinux.org... Aug 05 18:00:00 universe archlinux-keyring-wkd-sync[138999]: gpg: error retrieving 'antiz(a)archlinux.org' via WKD: Network error Aug 05 18:00:00 universe archlinux-keyring-wkd-sync[138999]: gpg: error reading key: Network error after manual retry: Aug 05 20:00:35 universe archlinux-keyring-wkd-sync[215497]: Refreshing key 14E46FE5FD69F2E287E244DB632C3CC0D1C9CAF6 with UID bgyorgy(a)archlinux.org... Aug 05 20:00:35 universe archlinux-keyring-wkd-sync[215702]: gpg: error retrieving 'bgyorgy(a)archlinux.org' via WKD: General error Aug 05 20:00:35 universe archlinux-keyring-wkd-sync[215702]: gpg: error reading key: General error Errors are for all keys that needs to be refreshed. Anyone seeing this? How to fix it? Regards, Łukasz

2 2

Next steps for non-x86 contributions?
by Fermín Olaiz 04 Aug '25

04 Aug '25

Hi, I'm not sure if this is the right mailing list, please let me know if I'm missing anything :) I've been doing some reading around the Arch Linux Ports RFC [1] and I must say I'm super excited about this idea. I would like to help but I'm a bit lost as to where to go. Last thing I found was Levente's mail in arch-dev-public [2], and if anything I think I could be helpful with anything related to the tooling and underlying infrastructure. I would eventually like to apply for maintainership status and help with packaging but I don't see myself with enough experience yet. Is there anyone coordinating those efforts? What would be some areas where help would be needed? Anyways, thank you all for bringing the distro forward! Fermín Olaiz. [1] https://rfc.archlinux.page/0032-arch-linux-ports/ [2] https://lists.archlinux.org/archives/list/arch-dev-public@lists.archlinux.o…

3 2

folder in /var/cache/pacman/pkg
by Frank 01 Aug '25

01 Aug '25

Good afternoon, I just discovered this folder /var/cache/pacman/pkg/download-LyI4Km/ with the following content: -rw-r--r-- 1 alpm alpm 34091008 5. Apr 07:49 calibre-8.0.1-3- x86_64.pkg.tar.zst.part -rw-r--r-- 1 alpm alpm 62468096 5. Apr 07:49 electron34-34.5.0-2- x86_64.pkg.tar.zst.part -rw-r--r-- 1 alpm alpm 19755008 2. Apr 21:00 mesa-1:25.0.3-1- x86_64.pkg.tar.zst -rw-r--r-- 1 alpm alpm 60813312 5. Apr 07:49 qt6-webengine-6.9.0-1- x86_64.pkg.tar.zst.part -rw-r--r-- 1 alpm alpm 37257216 5. Apr 07:49 telegram-desktop-5.13.1- 2-x86_64.pkg.tar.zst.part -rw-r--r-- 1 alpm alpm 106354016 5. Apr 01:17 zen-browser-bin-1.11b-2- x86_64.pkg.tar.zst -rw-r--r-- 1 alpm alpm 566 5. Apr 01:17 zen-browser-bin-1.11b-2- x86_64.pkg.tar.zst.sig Don't know where this is coming from but am wondering whether it's safe to delete it? THX Frank

5 5

Fwd: Possible malicous PKGBUILD
by David C Rankin 31 Jul '25

31 Jul '25

Dear Arch Officials, Will you please review the perpetual "moderation" that is attached to my AUR e-mail. This is going on a year and is quite ridiculous. This is my third request for review of this unfortunate matter. -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: Possible malicous PKGBUILD Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2025 09:22:24 +0000 From: aur-general-owner(a)lists.archlinux.org To: drankinatty(a)gmail.com Your message to the Aur-general mailing-list was rejected for the following reasons: The message comes from a moderated member The original message as received by Mailman is attached. -- David C. Rankin, J.D.,P.E.

2 1

Re: Licensing changes in package sources: does one link mentioned here 404?
by u34＠net9.cf 24 Jul '25

24 Jul '25

Sven-Hendrik Haase <svenstaro(a)archlinux.org> wrote: > Hey all, > > With [RFC40][0] and [RFC52][1] merged, we're now going full steam to > make sure the changes outlined in those RFCs are soon implemented. > If you are a packager and only care about how this concerns you without > the nitty gritty details, here's what you need to know in short: > > 1. PKGBUILDs and auxiliary files (e.g. config files, etc.) that Arch > Linux contributors provided will be licensed under 0BSD. Full current > list [here][3]. > 2. Licensing information will be documented in a `REUSE.toml` file per > repository and will be maintained by package maintainers going forward. > 3. We will generate a `REUSE.toml` (using `pkgctl license setup`) for > most packages. > 4. You may have to make changes to your packages (details below)! > 5. When moving package source repositories from the AUR, either contact > past contributors and ask for consent to license under 0BSD, or rewrite > the package sources. > > The changes introduced in [RFC40][0] and [RFC52][1] have a general > impact on packaging work. > > To clearly document which licenses apply to which files, we are > introducing REUSE [2], which provides a structured configuration file > format (`REUSE.toml`) for mapping files to concrete licenses. > In the near future, we will add these files to package source repos in > an automated fashion using `pkgctl license setup`. > While doing so, we will exclude some packages added after 2024-11-01, > see [this issue][4] for further details. > [4]: > https://gitlab.archlinux.org/archlinux/packaging/licensing-package-sources/… I get a 404. -- u34 > > In some cases (around 750 out of 12462 repos), packager maintainers will > need to manually perform some changes, as adding a `REUSE.toml` will not > work out of the box. There will be a todo list on Arch web for those > packages where manual action is required. > The most common reasons for this are: > > 1. The package's license isn't specified in an SPDX conforming fashion > (e.g. `GPL2` instead of `GPL-2.0-or-later`). There are open MRs on > GitLab to make some packages SPDX conforming [5]. We will go through > these and we'll try to merge all of these. > 2. Multiple license identifiers are specified in the PKGBUILD and > SRCINFO files and patch files are present in the package source repository. > In this case, we can't automatically pick a suitable upstream license. > > By default, all files in package source repos must be licensed under 0BSD. > 0BSD is very permissive and files licensed under its terms can be > contributed upstream under their desired license. > > For some files, 0BSD might not be suitable, and contributors need to > choose a different license depending on the situation. Here are some > common cases: > > - Included files originating from contributors that have not agreed to > the 0BSD license. > If the files are available under a FOSS license, mark the files under > that particular license in the `REUSE.toml`. > If no license is provided, the files need to be rewritten or removed. > - Patches taken from upstream and committed to the repository need to be > annotated with the correct upstream license. > > `pkgctl license` will be available from devtools v1.4.0 onwards. After > this release, you will encounter a warning when running `pkgctl release` > if your package source repository isn't compliant. > > If there are any open questions with existing packages and the new reuse > setup, reach out over the mailing list or in the packaging channel. > > Cheers, > Rafael and Sven > > [0]: https://rfc.archlinux.page/0040-license-package-sources/ > [1]: https://gitlab.archlinux.org/archlinux/rfcs/-/merge_requests/52 > [2]: https://reuse.software/ > [3]: > https://gitlab.archlinux.org/archlinux/devtools/-/blob/b8c475b3f402809fc65b… > [4]: > https://gitlab.archlinux.org/archlinux/packaging/licensing-package-sources/… > [5]: > https://gitlab.archlinux.org/search?scope=merge_requests&search=spdx&state=…

2 1

Good PR from bad AUR FF bin package situation courtesy of The Register
by David C Rankin 23 Jul '25

23 Jul '25

All, Despite the unfortunate AUR RAT issue, Arch received a good review of its handling of the matter: Arch Linux users told to purge Firefox forks after AUR malware scare https://go.reg.cx/tdml/dfd67/68a9047f/70c7d2e3/4hwN The article spoke well of Arch throughout. That's a good reflection on Arch governance and reaffirmation of the the way the distro has been managed. Well done. (I'm not affiliated with The Register, but worth subscribing to the excellent daily newsletter) -- David C. Rankin, J.D.,P.E.

1 0

About the 2 patches and GitLab requests
by c4a＠monocles.eu 23 Jul '25

23 Jul '25

Within the last 24 hours, I have sent 2 patches. Since the mailing list clearly isn't the right place to post them, I decided to request a GitLab account. However, this decision of mine has changed. As a preemptive action to prevent any drama, I have sent a message in the support ticket to disregard the request. None of this is done maliciously to harm Arch Linux or flood people's mailboxes. I really want this to be the last message about this. I mainly just was curious about the bring up process for packages. And I wanted to bring up a couple packages for the Arch Linux team since they are out of date.

2 1