- Arch-general - lists.archlinux.org

[arch-general] VLAN config works only partially
by Rainer Dorsch 22 Jan '22

22 Jan '22

Hi, I configured my network with multiple VLANs. I started with the description at https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/VLAN#systemd-networkd My current configuration: [n3150 ~]# cat /etc/systemd/network/enp2s0.network [Match] Name=enp2s0 [Link] ActivationPolicy=Manual [Network] Description=The unconfigured physical ethernet device # In case of 'tagged only' setups, you probably don't need any IP # configuration on the link without VLAN (or: default VLAN). # For that just omit an [Address] section and disable all the # autoconfiguration magic like this: LinkLocalAddressing=no LLDP=no EmitLLDP=no IPv6AcceptRA=no IPv6SendRA=no ;these are arbitrary names, but must match the *.netdev and *.network files VLAN=enp2s0.1 VLAN=enp2s0.2 VLAN=enp2s0.7 [DHCPv4] UseDNS=false [n3150 ~]# The VLAN config is simple, e.g. n3150% cat /etc/systemd/network/enp2s0.2.netdev [NetDev] Name=enp2s0.2 Kind=vlan [VLAN] Id=2% n3150% cat /etc/systemd/network/enp2s0.2.network [Match] Name=enp2s0.2 [Network] DHCP=yes Hostname=n3150-wlan n3150% The resulting routes: n3150% ip route default via 192.168.0.1 dev enp2s0.1 proto dhcp src 192.168.0.206 metric 1024 default via 192.168.2.1 dev enp2s0.2 proto dhcp src 192.168.2.206 metric 1024 default via 192.168.7.1 dev enp2s0.7 proto dhcp src 192.168.7.206 metric 1024 default via 192.168.0.1 dev enp2s0 proto dhcp metric 20100 192.168.0.0/24 dev enp2s0 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.0.206 metric 100 192.168.0.0/24 dev enp2s0.1 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.0.206 metric 1024 192.168.0.1 dev enp2s0.1 proto dhcp scope link src 192.168.0.206 metric 1024 192.168.2.0/24 dev enp2s0.2 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.2.206 metric 1024 192.168.2.1 dev enp2s0.2 proto dhcp scope link src 192.168.2.206 metric 1024 192.168.7.0/24 dev enp2s0.7 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.7.206 metric 1024 192.168.7.1 dev enp2s0.7 proto dhcp scope link src 192.168.7.206 metric 1024 n3150% Unfortunately, the 192.168.0.* network is not reachable without explicitly deleting the routes for enp2s0: [n3150 ~]# ping 192.168.0.30 PING 192.168.0.30 (192.168.0.30) 56(84) Bytes an Daten. ^C --- 192.168.0.30 ping-Statistik --- 2 Pakete übertragen, 0 empfangen, 100% packet loss, time 1016ms [n3150 ~]# ip route del default via 192.168.0.1 dev enp2s0 proto dhcp metric 20100 [n3150 ~]# ip route del 192.168.0.0/24 dev enp2s0 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.0.206 metric 100 [n3150 ~]# ping 192.168.0.30 PING 192.168.0.30 (192.168.0.30) 56(84) Bytes an Daten. 64 Bytes von 192.168.0.30: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 Zeit=0.699 ms 64 Bytes von 192.168.0.30: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 Zeit=0.287 ms ^C --- 192.168.0.30 ping-Statistik --- 2 Pakete übertragen, 2 empfangen, 0% packet loss, time 1010ms rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.287/0.493/0.699/0.206 ms [n3150 ~]# Can anybody tell how I can avoid the routes for enp2s0 get configured? Thanks Rainer

2 2

[arch-general] Env variable of user unit of ssh-agent not set
by Rainer Dorsch 22 Jan '22

22 Jan '22

Hi, I followed https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/SSH_keys#Start_ssh-agent_with_systemd_user It seems that SSH_AUTH_SOCK does not get set although it is in the user unit file. $ systemctl --user status ssh-agent.service ● ssh-agent.service - SSH key agent Loaded: loaded (/home/rd/.config/systemd/user/ssh-agent.service; enabled; vendor preset: enabled) Active: active (running) since Fri 2022-01-21 21:14:16 CET; 7min ago Main PID: 574 (ssh-agent) Tasks: 1 (limit: 9331) Memory: 920.0K CPU: 9ms CGroup: /user.slice/user-2809.slice/user(a)2809.service/app.slice/ssh- agent.service └─574 /usr/bin/ssh-agent -D -a /run/user/2809/ssh-agent.socket Jan 21 21:14:16 n3150 ssh-agent[574]: SSH_AUTH_SOCK=/run/user/2809/ssh- agent.socket; export SSH_AUTH_SOCK; Jan 21 21:14:16 n3150 ssh-agent[574]: echo Agent pid 574; Jan 21 21:14:16 n3150 systemd[564]: Started SSH key agent. $ cat .config/systemd/user/ssh-agent.service [Unit] Description=SSH key agent [Service] Type=simple Environment=SSH_AUTH_SOCK=%t/ssh-agent.socket # DISPLAY required for ssh-askpass to work Environment=DISPLAY=:0 ExecStart=/usr/bin/ssh-agent -D -a $SSH_AUTH_SOCK [Install] WantedBy=default.target $ ssh-add Could not open a connection to your authentication agent. $ echo $SSH_AUTH_SOCK $ Can anybody tell what I am missing? Any hint or advice is welcome. Thanks Rainer

3 3

[arch-general] Can't mount vfat filesystem
by Jeanette C. 22 Jan '22

22 Jan '22

Hey hey, I just updated my system yesterday and now I can't mount a VFAT filesystem. Installed packages: linux 5.16.2.arch1-1 util-linux 2.37.2-5 There is no mount.vfat or mount.fat program/script and apparently no kernel module installed that contains "fat" in its name. Is there a change in the way to mount such filesystems? Best wishes and thanks for any hints, Jeanette -- * Website: http://juliencoder.de - for summer is a state of sound * Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMS4rfGrTwz8W7jhC1Jnv7g * Audiobombs: https://www.audiobombs.com/users/jeanette_c * GitHub: https://github.com/jeanette-c Baby, there's something about you Show me, that nothing can hold you down <3 (Britney Spears)

3 4

[arch-general] Grub installiert issue
by Frank Zimmermann 19 Jan '22

19 Jan '22

I'm doing my first Arch install on an UEFI system and have troubles with GRUB. Following the instruction on the Wiki grub-mkconfig complained about a missing /boot/grub/grub.cfg.new. So I manually created a grub.cfg file but when rebooting Grub says error: unknown file system. In rescue mode I type set root=(hd0,gpt1) set prefix=(0,1)/boot/grub insmod normal error: disk '0,1' not found set prefix=(hd0,gpt1)/boot/grub insmod normal error: unknown filesystem set prefix=(0,gpt1)/boot/grub insmod normal error: disk 0,gpt1 not found My efi partition is the first partition on the first ssd. I think I did all I found on the Wiki and search on the web but am lost now with generating the grub.cfg Any hints please? Frank

5 6

[arch-general] pacman caches packages with u=rw,g=,o= permissions
by u34＠net9.ga 19 Jan '22

19 Jan '22

Lately, possibly starting at mid December, files in /var/cache/pacman/pkg/ are kept with mode u=rw,g=,o= . Am I the only one having it? -- jadon

4 8

[arch-general] A correction for my response about permissions of pacman packages cache
by u34＠net9.ga 19 Jan '22

19 Jan '22

At Tue Jan 18 23:44:56 UTC 2022, at the bottom of https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-general/2022-January/049521.html , I wrote that my understanding is that checkupdates -d is equivalent to pacman -Sywu && pacman -Su . I haven't read checkupdates manual page. It could be that other then a safe upgrade it does additional work. I still haven't read checkupdates manual page. Rereading mpan, who is the author of the message I responded to, message, I should have wrote that my understanding is that checkupdates -d is equivalent to pacman -Sywu . Not to pacman -Sywu && pacman -Su . -- jadon

1 0

[arch-general] minor, DeveloperWiki, I have no permissions. A fix, 3 broken links.
by u34＠net9.ga 18 Jan '22

18 Jan '22

Referring to https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/DeveloperWiki:Package_signing#Source_packa… : I seem to have no permission to edit. A fix for 3 broken URLs is: 1. http://ftp.de.debian.org/debian/pool/main/a/acpid/acpid_2.0.4.orig.tar.gz -> https://snapshot.debian.org/archive/debian/20100422T161418Z/pool/main/a/acp… 2. http://ftp.de.debian.org/debian/pool/main/a/acpid/acpid_2.0.4-1.diff.gz -> https://snapshot.debian.org/archive/debian/20100422T161418Z/pool/main/a/acp… 3. http://ftp.de.debian.org/debian/pool/main/a/acpid/acpid_2.0.4-1.dsc -> https://snapshot.debian.org/archive/debian/20100422T161418Z/pool/main/a/acp… Please apply. As an aside, according to https://www.debian.org/News/2010/20100412, http://snapshot.debian.org/ , contain almost all packages from the main and security archives since March 2005 and more. -- jadon

1 0

[arch-general] User-Submitted Package Updates (how it could possibly work)
by Philip Evens 18 Jan '22

18 Jan '22

Interesting discussion: https://old.reddit.com/r/archlinux/comments/s5id1m/usersubmitted_package_up… https://archive.is/9wwNm Quoting: -------- A lot of packages are flagged out of date, some even for security issues. Some have no maintainer. Many have inactive maintainers and have been left to rot. Active developer resources are limited. I'd like to describe how the situation could be improved with the help of the community in a way that may not have been brought up before. Arch packages are built from very easy-to-read PKGBUILD files, similar to Makefiles. In short, users would be able to submit diffs to PKGBUILDs in the repo for updates, but not actually upload binary packages, similar to how the AUR works (and for the same reason): A diff to the PKGBUILD can be audited for errors or malice in a matter of seconds, while a (currently unreproduced) user-submitted binary shouldn't be trusted at all. The only difference in this scenario is that a trusted committer (who may or may not be the package maintainer) would have to look at the diff and commit the update to the repo, rather than users committing them. On to the first issue: that text I put in bold. Several Arch devs have mentioned (in public and private) that the culture of not "stepping on anyone's toes" prevents them from updating packages that are maintained by someone else. Conversely, there was a talk at the last Arch Conf where Lavente said he wanted more packages to be co-maintained by multiple people in case one wasn't available to actually maintain it. I don't have a technical solution to this people problem -- devs would simply have to live with the fact that users need fixes and sometimes another dev will update your package for you. Don't take it personally. The other issue: Arch has a legacy separation of core, extra, and community repos. Only "developers" can commit to core and extra, while "trusted users" are restricted to the community repo. I'm 100% sure everyone reading this has all three repos enabled, thus destroying any notion of community being "less trusted" than the other two. Having the core repo require an extra sign-off and some testing is a good idea, but otherwise I think this artificial separation should be done away with. One problem with the current situation is that "trusted users" may be available and willing to help, but can't actually update anything in the core or extra repos. Onboarding more of them doesn't help either because it takes months or years for them to be promoted to "developers," if it happens at all. So back on topic: How would users actually submit the updates to the PKGBUILDs? Eventually, when the Arch gitlab allows registration, they could be very simply sent as pull requests. Right now they would have to be sent through the existing bug tracker (the same one that specifically disallows what I'm suggesting). After being reviewed and committed, a package could be built by the developer who chose to take it... or there could be bigger infrastructure changes to save them time and effort in the long run. Here I'm talking about a large number of project devs committing the PKGBUILD changes, but only one build server (or farm) doing the compilation and (optionally through another special server) signing of the results. This is basically how it works in BSD for their package repos. The server(s) could automatically build any committed update every hour, or devs could issue a "queue this package" type of command on it, or some other way. That kind of setup would have the side benefit of only requiring users to trust one signing key, rather than a keyring of dozens of people around the world with varying degrees of personal security, and trusting the binaries sometimes just built on their daily laptops. It would also allow the package database to be signed more easily, which has been a big problem for a long time. (This is probably better for a separate discussion.) tl;dr: Users submit PKGBUILD diffs, anyone with commit access builds and pushes them. What do you think?

4 3

[arch-general] Patch for qt5-wayland to fix extreme lag on wayland
by Severus 16 Jan '22

16 Jan '22

Hi folks, I use wayland on plasma and it's extremely laggy. I googled and see this patch https://codereview.qt-project.org/c/qt/qtwayland/+/373473. I rebuild qt5-wayland and it worked very well. But the patch leads to race condition. I wonder that maintainer of qt5-wayland should include to PKGBUILD or not. Best regards, Severus -- Dẫu thế gian có tồn tại hàng vạn điều kì lạ vô thường, tôi vẫn muốn em biết rằng em là người con gái đặc biệt nhất tôi từng thương...

4 3

[arch-general] Why is README stripped from gawk package?
by David C. Rankin 09 Jan '22

09 Jan '22

All, Just a question of why the README is stripped from the gawk package. It seems that should be placed in /usr/share/doc/gawk, but that directory doesn't even exist. It holds the developer information and instead of having that information as part of the package, I ended up stumbling around gnu.org to find it (which sent me to the savannah.git... source for it) Seems like a basic README should be in ../doc/pkgname for all packages. -- David C. Rankin, J.D.,P.E.

6 6