- Arch-general - lists.archlinux.org

Re: [arch-general] [aur-general] [arch-dev-public] final leg of /lib removal
by Genes MailLists 09 Jul '12

09 Jul '12

On 07/09/12 07:48, Dave Reisner wrote: > You need to regenerate your locales with 'locale-gen'. > Thank you both - that fixed it (I needed to uncomment en_US_xxx in /etc/locale-gen first. thanks again gene

1 0

[arch-general] Glibc 2.16.0-2 in testing killed my system.
by fredbezies 08 Jul '12

08 Jul '12

Hello. I upgraded a few minutes ago my archlinux + testing installation. As I cannot install glibc (because of some AUR software which had links or binary in /lib), I made the mistake of forcing installation. My system is dead. I will try repairing using archboot on an USB key. Maybe this version needs to be retired. Well I'm kinda annoyed by this bug :( -- Frederic Bezies fredbezies(a)gmail.com

9 9

[arch-general] Alternative to Shutter application
by Mateusz Loskot 08 Jul '12

08 Jul '12

Hi, Does anyone know a screenshot taking and snipping application, similar to the Shutter (http://shutter-project.org/) but 'more suckless'. It is a tool that - takes a screenshot - allows to select area and crop - is implemented in C - without enormous list of dependencies - is simpler, without too many edit or sharing features. IOW, something similar to the Snipping Tool known from Windows Vitsa/7+. Do you know anything like that? Best regards, -- Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net

6 9

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] heads up: /lib removal
by Myra Nelson 08 Jul '12

08 Jul '12

> So... this upgrade has been more fun than expected. At the moment > there appears to a "limitation" in pacman so I would recommend updating > like: > > Step 0) open a root shell - this can be used to recover if anything goes > wrong > > Step 1) run: > pacman -Qo /lib/* > Deal with (either via updating from the repo or rebuilding) anything not > owned by glibc > > Step 2) run: > find /var/lib/pacman/local -name files | xargs grep "^lib/$" > This should only return glibc. If not, rebuild those packages not to > own the /lib directory > > Step 3) pacman -Syu > > > If something goes wrong (you will see a message like "call to execv > failed"), use your root shell to do: > /usr/lib/ld-2.16.so /bin/rm -r /lib > /usr/lib/ld-2.16.so /bin/ln -s usr/lib /lib > > > > Note that all this should have been unnecessary and the instructions > given by falconindy should have been enough. But there appears to be a > genuine pacman bug in conflict checking where it ignores other packages > owning a directory when it checks if it can be removed. Hopefully this > can be fixed soon... There may be something else going on with here > too, but we are unsure as of yet. > > Note that pacman will detect when there are files in /lib that do not > belong to glibc before upgrade, just not if some other package owns /lib > only (with no files). So all the cases I tested (folder and files in > /lib, both owned and unowned by packages) do not result in the error. > > Allan > > >From the pacman -Qo /lib/* command I discovered a module directory with some left over kernels modules. I checked /usr/lib/modules and had the modules for my current kernels so I did the stupid thing and sudo rm -Rvf /lib/modules. Don't jump yet, because Allan's procedure worked perfectly after that. Actually for such a massive upgrade I think things went well. Myra -- Life's fun when your sick and psychotic!

1 0

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] heads up: /lib removal
by Damjan 08 Jul '12

08 Jul '12

> Allan pushed glib 2.16-2 into [testing] which removes /lib as a > directory, replacing it with a symlink. A bit of advice... > > - In the simplest case, the upgrade can be done as simply as: > > pacman -Syu --ignore glibc && pacman -S glibc > > - Since nothing is ever simple, if the above still fails on installation > of glibc (with a somewhat cryptic "/lib exists" error), I have an older Arch-testing system in a virtual machine, which I don't think I can upgrade very easily, since it requires a newer glibc (has 2.13-5 now) to upgrade a lot of the packages that have files in /lib Also it asks me about a pacman update that also can't be done because of a glibc dependency. I wonder if it be possible to upgrade Arch installed from the 2011.08.19 release? -- дамјан

2 2

[arch-general] Leap seconds ntp and chrony?
by mike cloaked 06 Jul '12

06 Jul '12

There has been a fair amount of disruption to systems over a widespread geographic area due to the mutex leap second bug from midnight Saturday, and from what I read this was triggered by ntpd calling specific routines from the kernel - does anyone know if the same bug has also hit systems using chrony if that was in use instead of ntp? I guess that the kernel patches being written by John Stulz at https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/7/1/203 will filter through to a kernel update at some point? -- mike c

13 38

[arch-general] MPD volume problems after update -> mpd 0.17-1
by Sébastien le Preste de Vauban 06 Jul '12

06 Jul '12

if I attempt to change the volume of the current song being played by mpd (tested with ncmpcpp and sonata), the volume gets muted, no sound can be heard. This did not happen with older version of mpd 0.16.x. I haven't touched my mpd.conf and mpd.log does not show anything suspicious. <http://shining-global.en.alibaba.com/>

5 9

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] x264 and ffmpeg rebuild
by Sven-Hendrik Haase 06 Jul '12

06 Jul '12

On 07/06/2012 03:31 PM, Ionut Biru wrote: > bump, > > i really want to move this list as soon as possible to testing. > what's the status of amarok and miro? > what about the other packages that weren't compatible? did you guys > switched to ffmpeg-compat? > > I say we kick miro and apparently amarok already compiles cleanly against ffmpeg 0.11.

1 0

[arch-general] Glibc 2.16 bad effect on some software ?
by fredbezies 06 Jul '12

06 Jul '12

Hello. I'm used to build every days or every two days mozilla firefox from its trunk source code. Today, after glibc 2.16 upgrade on testing, after a successful build process, I got an error message while trying to package mozilla firefox : /bin/sh : line 1 : 22172 Segmentation fault /home/fred/logs/fox/objdir-fx/dist/bin/run-mozilla.sh /home/fred/logs/fox/objdir-fx/browser/installer/../../dist/bin/shlibsign -v -i ../../dist/firefox/libsoftokn3.so make[3]: * [stage-package] Error 139 make[2]: * [make-package] Error 2 make[1]: * [default] Error 2 make: * [package] Error 2 Yesterday, with glibc 2.15, all worked well. Any idea ? -- Frederic Bezies fredbezies(a)gmail.com

4 5

[arch-general] /etc/os-release: Suggestions for improvements
by Karol Babioch 05 Jul '12

05 Jul '12

Hi, I've just recently learned about the relatively new file "/etc/os-release" and have to say that I quite like it. The previous situation was a mess at best, so this is a great way for unifying. systemd is really great in that regard. To my great astonishment it was already included into Arch about a month ago, see [1]. After looking at the file I have questions about some parameters. I know this might seem to be very petty-minded, but somehow its important to me. Maybe I'm just too perfectionistic about this. First of all I'm wondering why HOME_URL is set to the plain HTTP version of archlinux.org, whereas the other two links are set to the secure HTTPS version. This doesn't seem to be consequent. The example shows that Fedora is using the HTTPS version for both the HOME_URL as well as the BUG_REPORT_URL. After reading the appropriate man page (see [2]), I think the parameter SUPPORT_URL is not appropriate. It is set to "https://bbs.archlinux.org/". Personally I have some sort of a problem with the fact that only the forums get mentioned as a source for support. Personally I don't use the forums very often, but do make use of the mailing lists and the *really* great wiki much more heavily. Furthermore there are the various IRC channels, which probably are used by some of you. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be some sort of a landing page, summarizing all the different ways you can ask/look for help, e.g. something like "https://www.archlinux.org/support/". Probably this would be the best solution. It looks like Fedora isn't mentioning a support URL at all, so maybe this would also be an option for us also? Furthermore I'm wondering whether we should look into the Common Platform Enumeration (CPE) specification (see [3]) in order to apply for an entry. From what I can tell it doesn't cost anything, but you have to contact the NVD CPE team, see [4]. Obviously this should be done by someone officially connected to Arch Linux. I don't want to leave behind any wrong impressions. I really appreciate how fast Arch Linux is following along with the proposals from upstream, but I do think we could be more consequent in this case. I couldn't find any sort of discussions about this, so before submitting any "patches" and/or reporting "bugs", I would like to ask you what you think about all of this? Best regards, Karol Babioch [1] https://projects.archlinux.org/svntogit/packages.git/commit/trunk/os-releas… [2] http://www.freedesktop.org/software/systemd/man/os-release.html [3] http://cpe.mitre.org/specification/ [4] http://nvd.nist.gov/cpe.cfm

6 9