- Arch-general - lists.archlinux.org

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] [signoff] usbutils-0.84-1
by Denis A. Altoé Falqueto 20 Jul '09

20 Jul '09

On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 9:40 AM, Allan McRae<allan(a)archlinux.org> wrote: > Upstream update. > > Signoff both arches. > User signoff, x86_64. lsusb acts as expected. Thanks. -- ------------------------------------------- Denis A. Altoe Falqueto ------------------------------------------- Ogden Nash - "The trouble with a kitten is that when it grows up, it's always a cat." - http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/o/ogden_nash.html

1 0

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] [signoff] shadow-4.1.4.1-1
by Denis A. Altoé Falqueto 20 Jul '09

20 Jul '09

On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 8:40 AM, Allan McRae<allan(a)archlinux.org> wrote: > Upstream update. Fixes FS#15217. > > Sign-off both arches. > User signoff, x86_64. Logged in fine. Thanks. -- ------------------------------------------- Denis A. Altoe Falqueto ------------------------------------------- Joan Crawford - "I, Joan Crawford, I believe in the dollar. Everything I earn, I spend." - http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/j/joan_crawford.html

1 0

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] [signoff] readline-6.0.003-1
by Denis A. Altoé Falqueto 20 Jul '09

20 Jul '09

On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 9:08 AM, Allan McRae<allan(a)archlinux.org> wrote: > Bump upstream patch level, moved static libraries to /usr/lib > > Signoff both arches. > User signoff, x86_64. Bash works fine. Thanks -- ------------------------------------------- Denis A. Altoe Falqueto ------------------------------------------- Samuel Goldwyn - "I'm willing to admit that I may not always be right, but I am never wrong." - http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/s/samuel_goldwyn.html

1 0

Re: [arch-general] What to do about the "blender" package?
by Andrei Thorp 20 Jul '09

20 Jul '09

Excerpts from Allan McRae's message of Sun Jul 19 00:00:53 -0400 2009: > So the package is out-of-date and the new version does not build? Could > be a reason why it is not updated... I recall Blender not having support for python 2.6 at some point (while we had 2.6). It seems some folks have now successfully built Blender with 2.6 support, but it seeems woefully unofficial. I wonder what can be done about that. -- Andrei Thorp, Developer: Xandros Corp. (http://www.xandros.com)

2 2

[arch-general] [signoff] kernel26 2.6.30.2-1
by Tobias Powalowski 20 Jul '09

20 Jul '09

Hi guys, just an upstream bump, with the latest security fix, update is recommended for all users. please signoff fast greetings tpowa -- Tobias Powalowski Archlinux Developer & Package Maintainer (tpowa) http://www.archlinux.org tpowa(a)archlinux.org

1 0

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] [signoff] vc/* -> tty* transition - round 2
by Matthew 20 Jul '09

20 Jul '09

Allan McRae wrote: > A couple of fixes have been applied to these packages since the last > signoff message. The list of packages looking for signoffs now are: > > filesystem 2009.07-1 > initscripts 2009.07-3 > syslog-ng 3.0.3-2 > udev 141-5 > > Cheers, > Allan > Would it be possible to have a news item, after the move to core, letting users know of the change and that pacman will be touching their /etc/inittab file? ~pyther

1 0

[arch-general] MythTV
by Manne Merak 20 Jul '09

20 Jul '09

My previous MythTV box, running opensuse 10.2, just died (HDD failure). Replaced the HDD and installed Arch for n minimal MythTV platform; on an old AMD Athlon 1.2G, 512Meg RAM, NVIDIA FX5200. All installed fine, but I get "Bus error" if I try to run any MythTV app. I guess it was compiled with some Intel only feature? Anyone have some suggestions? or should I just grab a copy of Mythbuntu? Manne

2 3

[arch-general] What to do about the "blender" package?
by Sven-Hendrik Haase 20 Jul '09

20 Jul '09

Dear Arch Devs, I'm reposting this mail to arch-general because I was ignored on arch-dev-public. I wonder what should be done about the "blender" package in [extra]. The package hasn't been updated for quite some time (it is correctly marked out-of-date), a few bug reports have been filed for it, it doesn't build anymore and the package maintainer doesn't answer my mails. What can be done in such a case? I wouldn't want to suggest anything that would break the peace and render the happy rainbows gray in Arch Dev land, yet I wonder if it would be suitable in such a case to degrade the package in question to [community] so that a TU may take care of it? This is of course assuming that no other dev wants to take over "blender". -- Sven-Hendrik

5 7

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] [signoff] vc/* -> tty* transition
by Baho Utot 19 Jul '09

19 Jul '09

On Sun, 2009-07-19 at 12:01 +1000, Allan McRae wrote: > First off, I don't like modifying config files. But, given I did this > update and still managed to screw my system up when testing it with a > reboot... > > So it is a question of which I hate more; post install messages or > automatically fixing the file. > > A post install message means that I tell all complaining users that they > should have read their pacman output. But hang on, they are already > told that there is a .pacnew file for what is a very important config > file. So I can say that anyway. So here is my prototype install file... > > post_install() > { > if [ -f "/etc/inittab.pacnew" ]; then > echo "You are being very stupid if you did not take notice of that > warning about a .pacnew file" > fi > } > > A simple sed of the config file means much, much less complaining > users. And given the number of complaints I got about libjpeg7 (wheres > the thanks now gtk and kde are working?), I am very, very tempted just > to do the sed. > > Allan > Not that my option means squat but.... I agree. Since this update/upgrade will break everyone/most peoples systems I think a relaxing of the rule for this one is justified . Rules are meant to be broken, that's why there are rules :) You do want to be a distro without rules don't you?

5 4

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] [signoff] vc/* -> tty* transition
by Loui Chang 19 Jul '09

19 Jul '09

On Sun 19 Jul 2009 12:01 +1000, Allan McRae wrote: > First off, I don't like modifying config files. But, given I did > this update and still managed to screw my system up when testing it > with a reboot... > > So it is a question of which I hate more; post install messages or > automatically fixing the file. > > A post install message means that I tell all complaining users that > they should have read their pacman output. But hang on, they are > already told that there is a .pacnew file for what is a very > important config file. So I can say that anyway. So here is my > prototype install file... > > post_install() > { > if [ -f "/etc/inittab.pacnew" ]; then > echo "You are being very stupid if you did not take notice of that > warning about a .pacnew file" > fi > } > > A simple sed of the config file means much, much less complaining > users. And given the number of complaints I got about libjpeg7 > (wheres the thanks now gtk and kde are working?), I am very, very > tempted just to do the sed. If you expect the users to be stupid they will be stupid, and you will hold their hand, and they will begin to expect you to hold their hand, and then we're in trouble. We will snowball right into Archbuntu. So. Do what's right. Give users a warning, give them time to adjust. If people start complaining, give them the straight line, plug your ears and sing 'Lalalala I warned you.' Don't stress yourself. You're not even being paid after all.

3 3