- Arch-general - lists.archlinux.org

[arch-general] Could not upload nxcomp package to AUR
by Gerhard Brauer 25 Jun '08

25 Jun '08

Hello, another question: I try to upload a package named nxcomp to AUR (Section lib), but it's revoked: You are not allowed to overwrite the nxcomp package. But i don't found such a package in AUR nor with pacman -Ss nxcomp. Any hints? Regards Gerhard -- MSCI = M$cro Soft Certificated Installer

2 2

[arch-general] AUR Tarball format (makepkg --source)
by Gerhard Brauer 25 Jun '08

25 Jun '08

Hello, is it possible to upload a package to AUR which is build with: makepkg --source ? I think not (package naming and no package subdir in tarball), but this were be a nice feature ;-) Regards Gerhard -- rm -rf DOESN'T mean: read mail -really fast

4 4

[arch-general] Firefox 3 on latest update of Don't Panic question
by Nigel Henry 23 Jun '08

23 Jun '08

I'm just about to update one of my 2 instances of Don't Panic. Firefox 3 is going to be installed. I'd had problems playing a radio stream from a radio station in the Channel Islands using Bon Echo, so downloaded and installed another instance of Firefox from the Mozilla site, and installed it in /usr/local, where I normally install Firefox. This ran the stream from the site ok. I then changed the identity of Bon Echo to Firefox, and this too ran the stream ok. The site obviously had some problems with the Bon Echo identity. The question is though. If I go ahead with the upgrade of Firefox/Bon Echo to 3.0-1, is it still going to play well with the Firefox I installed from the Mozilla site (version 2.0.0.12). At the moment they are both happy to share the same files in ~/, and both use the same addons. For info my current Bon Echo version is 2.0.0.14. I havn't tried Firefox 3 yet, so it may be interesting, but all the same, don't want to screw anything up. Whatever it's like, it can't be as bad as all the complaints I've seen regarding KDE4 on the Fedora, and Kubuntu lists. Saying that though, new stuff always gets a lot of feedback, both positive, and negative. Nigel.

3 2

[arch-general] Firefox 3
by David Rosenstrauch 23 Jun '08

23 Jun '08

Whoever was involved, kudos to you on getting FF3 out into the repos. Not only does FF3 appear to be much faster, but it also looks like it fixes a very irritating bug I've been dealing with for quite a while now. (http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/10066) Thanks again! DR

2 1

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] adding http user/group to filesystems
by RedShift 23 Jun '08

23 Jun '08

Pierre Schmitz wrote: > Hi, > > as mentioned in the apache thread I would like to use a dedicated user/group > for our different webserver packages. To achieve this I'd like to add the > user/group http to our filesystem package. (It allready contains them for > mail and ftp) > > According to > http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/DeveloperWiki:UID_/_GID_Database uid/gid > 33 should be free for use. > > An install script to add those for upgraders have to be added, too. > > Another approach would be adding an install script creating those groups to > the webserver packages. > > What do you think is best? > > Pierre Why not just use nobody for programs that need their own user, as a sane default. Any smart admin should create any groups and users himself when necessairy. And prevents cluttering of unnecessairy users/groups. For example in my httpd setups, the http users would never be used. IMO. Glenn

10 21

[arch-general] Firebug FF extension won't upgrade with FF3.0
by David Rosenstrauch 23 Jun '08

23 Jun '08

Anyone else use the Firebug extension for Firefox? Seems like the old version (1.05) isn't compatible with FF3.0. But I'm also unable to upgrade to the new version (1.2.0b3). The extension home page (https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/1843) tells me I need to upgrade Firefox to use the add-on. Anyone know what's wrong and/or a workaround? TIA, DR

3 4

[arch-general] Package file lists?
by David Rosenstrauch 23 Jun '08

23 Jun '08

Used to be that when viewing a package's info on the Arch web site that there was a link to click on that would take you to a page that would list the files contained in that package. (i.e., equivalent to the output of "pacman -Ql <package>") Seems like that functionality is gone now though. Just wondering if there was any particular reason why it was removed, and if there were any plans to bring it back. I used to find it a very handy tool, and it would be great to have it again. Thanks, DR

2 9

[arch-general] Azureus
by Ondřej Kučera 22 Jun '08

22 Jun '08

Hello, does anybody know what the deal is/plans are with the azureus package? It hasn't been updated for more than 7 months and it has been flagged out of date for a couple of months now too (as far as I remember). If the devs are not interested in maintaining it, shouldn't it be moved either to community or to unsupported where perhaps someone would pick it up and update the PKBGUILD? Ondřej -- Cheers Ondřej Kučera

7 9

[arch-general] srcpac (issues/fixes) was: ressurrecting srcpac
by chi＠chimeric.de 21 Jun '08

21 Jun '08

Hi, first of thanks Jason for incorporating my changes :). However, just today I discovered some issues with srcpac I haven't noticed before. Today I tried to build a customized version of vim, and found out that srcpac used the PKGBUILD of the vim in [testing]. This is due to the fact that it uses find to lookup the package candidates. The easiest method to fix this is to put the configs into /etc/srcpac.d/<repo>/<package> and check against that. Sorry for noticing this just now, the packages I've tested before all worked without any problems :S. I've patched srcpac accordingly and pushed the changes to my public repo again. Best Regards, Michael

1 0

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] cleaned-up apache package
by Loui 20 Jun '08

20 Jun '08

On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 09:38:42AM -0400, Dale Blount wrote: > > > +1 on the change from /home, but I don't think /usr/share is the right > > > place. /usr should be able to be mounted read-only except when software > > > is changed. That's something you can't do if you keep websites > > > there. /var/www or /srv/www are much better choices. > > > > You got me wrong. :-) /usr/share is used only for the datadir. According to > > configure this is for "read-only architecture-independent data". And those > > things should stay in /usr/share. There is no pre-configured documentroot > > where you have to put your webpages. That's up to the user who has to adjust > > httpd.conf to his needs. Nobody should put his web content > > under /usr/share. :-) But there will be an install message about this. > > /usr/share will host the error directory. I for one have several hosts > with custom error files, although I suppose a rw remount to change those > isn't the end of the world. I think the idea behind /usr/share is that you copy the data to where you actually want to host it. If you have custom error pages you wouldn't even bother with /usr/share and just put copies of those pages where you're hosting (/srv/www for example).

1 0