- Arch-general - lists.archlinux.org

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] Xorg-server 1.5RC6 enters testing
by Alessio Bolognino 01 Sep '08

01 Sep '08

On Sun 2008-08-31 20:37, Jan de Groot wrote: > Xorg-server 1.5RC6 (1.4.99.906) enters tesing. This version of > xorg-server includes input hotplugging using hal, better EXA support and > less memory usage. > Note that this version requires an upgrade of all videodrivers. > All videodrivers shipped with X.Org have been rebuilt to reflect this > change. Nvidia drivers don't seem to need a rebuild, while AMD's > catalyst drivers don't support the new X.Org version. Fglrx users should > not upgrade to this version. > > Please give this version of X.Org an extensive test run and report bugs. OK, this is not a bug report and I have not even tested it yet, but reading the PKGBUILD I found that for some reason a file ( /usr/lib/xorg/modules/libwfb.so ) is created by the scriptlets; in this way pacman doesn't know which package owns it. I have to admit it's a pretty minor annoyance, since it is removed by the post_remove function, but it seems to me an useless complication. Unless I'm missing something, you can get rid of the xorg-server.install file and put: ln -sf libwfb.so.1.4 ${pkgdir}/usr/lib/xorg/modules/libwfb.so at the end of the PKGBUILD. Cheers, -- Alessio (molok) Bolognino

3 2

[arch-general] archlinux in vmware server 2 beta in archlinux x86_64 systems
by Geoffroy Carrier 31 Aug '08

31 Aug '08

Hello! I'm more or less still working on providing x86_64+i686 virtual machines on a compilation machine to devs and TUs. Problem staying unresolved for days and days: the Arch Linux installation media kernel detects the VM as a 32 bits system. Does anyone have an experience with it? On a unrelated matter, I've been pretty busy and late in my work those days. I got back into meetings and it takes me a looot of time. Happily there will be quite less meetings from the second half of September, but then I'll be back in class and will have a team to build/manage. -- Geoffroy Carrier

2 2

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] Cleaning up the base group
by Alessio Bolognino 31 Aug '08

31 Aug '08

On Fri 2008-08-29 23:42, Pierre Schmitz wrote: > Am Freitag 29 August 2008 12:27:50 schrieb Thomas Bächler: > > - nano Do we really need another editor in base? Let's leave it in > > core, remove it from base. > > This might end up in a flamwar, but if we have to remove one editor I > would vote vor vim and keep nano. [... more nonsense ] ||||||||| vvvvvvvvv ************* ======================> * THIS * <================================ ======================> * IS * <================================ ======================> * MADNESS! * <================================ ************* ^^^^^^^^^ ||||||||| :%s/Pierre Schmitz/Wuss Infidel/g :wq! -- Alessio (molok) Bolognino

10 13

[arch-general] Rebuild davfs2 from extra please
by Gerhard Brauer 31 Aug '08

31 Aug '08

Hello, davfs2 from extra is outdated. PKGBUILD must also be modified. Currently davfs2 is broken. I attached a PKGBUILD in bugreport: http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/11285 Gerhard -- Die NASA brauchte 12 Jahre um einen Kugelschreiber zu entwickeln, der kopfueber, in der Schwerelosigkeit und unter Wasser schreiben kann. Die Russen benutzten einfach einen Bleistift...

1 0

[arch-general] /srv/ vs. /home/httpd/html
by Jon Kristian Nilsen 30 Aug '08

30 Aug '08

I know this change has been running for some time now, but out of curiousity i'd like to know why it's been descided to put phpmyadmin/apache stuff in a new root folder called /srv/ instead of /home/* Isn't this a very personal setup compared to having this in the already existing /home/ folder? And not to forget that the change created a great deal of extra work for users who has been using /home/.. /srv/ must have some hidden important stability boosts?? And please don't get me wrong, i don't really care, since i have most of these folders mounted the way i want them, im still going to rebuild these packages and more using abs. Im just curious... -JK

3 3

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] Risky business: udev upgrade
by bardo 30 Aug '08

30 Aug '08

On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 1:45 AM, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin(a)gmail.com> wrote: > start_udev is still there because people were jackasses and didn't > update initscripts when they updated udev.... or something.. I can't > remember the issue, but it was people being foolish and expecting > their systems to boot fine. > > Is everyone ok with removing it? Just remember to update /etc/udev/readme-udev-arch.txt: it still references start_udev as the way to reload rules, and it's also mentioned in another couple of places in that file. Corrado

2 1

Re: [arch-general] /srv/ vs. /home/httpd/html
by Daenyth Blank 30 Aug '08

30 Aug '08

It's for FHS compliance mostly. It was discussed on the arch-dev-public ml some time ago. Your apache config still points to /home, so it shouldn't actually matter. It's just a default.

1 0

[arch-general] Integrity Check
by Xavier 29 Aug '08

29 Aug '08

Hello, I rewrote stonecrest's python script which generated the Integrity Checks : http://projects.archlinux.org/?p=dbscripts.git;a=blob_plain;f=cron-jobs/che… last results : http://www.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/2008-August/007655.html Main changes include : * better and safer parsing of PKGBUILDs (it now relies on a separate bash script which source PKGBUILDs and generate python code, rather than trying to parse bash directly in python) * much better performance (thanks to a small python C extension which allows to call alpm_vercmp natively rather than having to fork the vercmp binary thousands of times) * more accurate dependency and provision handling (having worked on this part of the pacman code for a while probably helped me a bit here) > time ./check_archlinux.sh =================== = Integrity Check = =================== Performing integrity checks... ==> checking mismatches ==> checking archs ==> checking dependencies ==> checking makedepends Missing Dependencies ---------------------- archboot --> 'bcm43xx-fwcutter>=006-2' Missing Makedepends --------------------- wpa_supplicant --> 'kernel26<2.6.25' xosd --> 'xmms' flac --> 'xmms' Summary --------- Invalid PKGBUILDs: 0 Mismatching PKGBUILD names: 0 Invalid archs: 0 Missing (make)dependencies: 4 ./check_archlinux.sh 6,29s user 0,65s system 96% cpu 7,210 total

11 22

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] Cleaning up the base group
by RedShift 29 Aug '08

29 Aug '08

Thomas Bächler wrote: > Now that our installer installs the whole base group by default, I'd > wish it would stick to the essential part. I suggest cleaning this up a > bit: > > > Packages that IMO shouldn't be in base: > - dialog > Nothing depends on it, why do we even need it in core? > - hwdetect > Nothing uses it, we don't need that in core either > - ca-certificates, lzo2, openssl, wpa_supplicant > We need those in core, but really not in base > - dash > Nobody uses it by default, may IMO stay in core, but has no place in base > > - ppp, rp-pppoe (plus libpcap dep) > Only few people need those, leave them in core, but remove from base > - tcp_wrappers > No base package needs them as far I know, leave in core, remove from base > > We should also remove all packages from base that only are in there as a > dependency of another package and for no other reason, as they will be > pulled in when needed anyway. > > Packages that we should think about: > - mdadm > - pcmciautils > - cryptsetup, lvm2 (plus their deps libgcrypt, libgpg-error, device-mapper) > Those are base tools, but not everybody needs them. I'd like to keep > them in base, but maybe someone else may disagree. > - nano > Do we really need another editor in base? Let's leave it in core, remove > it from base. > > You should still make it possible to select which packages you want to install. Glenn

3 2

[arch-general] Should pkgtools be in community?
by Daenyth Blank 27 Aug '08

27 Aug '08

I was talking with some of the other TUs, and they thought that I should not include pkgtools in community, because it's an unofficial tool for archlinux. I wanted to get some arch dev's opinions on this, since I hadn't heard of anything against it before. Please let me know what you think. Thanks, --Daenyth

6 5