- Arch-general - lists.archlinux.org

[arch-general] Kernel Module Package Guidelines
by Michael Towers 06 Dec '07

06 Dec '07

I recently posted a feature request for the aufs dependency on aufs-utils to be removed (because the latter is not necessary for using aufs). The bug was closed by the maintainer because "This is the standard way of packaging modules in Arch: http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Kernel_Module_Package_Guidelines". Of course he was right: "... make sure nvidia depends on nvidia-utils ..." It's maybe a rather small point, but to me this requirement seems a bit excessive. I would suggest rephrasing this to: "... if nvidia-utils is required for the use of nvidia, make sure nvidia depends on nvidia-utils ..."

5 12

[arch-general] Change kernel version or module dir at bootprompt?
by Gerhard Brauer 04 Dec '07

04 Dec '07

Hello, i've searched a while and found nothing. And AFAIK there isnt't an chance to do this. But maybe one of you know a trick, a magic... Is it possible to change either the kernel version (what uname -r says) or the location of the kernel modul dir at boottime? I think about an easy solution to backup an arch kernel with it's modules. But since the kernel version is fix and releated to the module dir one could not simply copy /lib/modules/foo.bar to ex. /lib/modules/foo.bar-backup. Anyone knows a trick? Thanks Gerhard -- Virus gefunden - Bundestrojaner_BT32/W Dieser Schaedling steht auf dem Boden der freiheitlich-demokratischen Grundordnung. Sie haben folgende Moeglichkeiten: Mit Nein die Abwehr abzuwenden oder mit jeder anderen Taste die Installation fortzusetzen.

6 14

[arch-general] FTP-ISO 2007.08-2 Bug (wrong PATH for root)
by Gerhard Brauer 04 Dec '07

04 Dec '07

Hello, a user of archlinux.de have point me to problems with his install from current ftp-iso. Many commands (reboot, adduser) were not found. I've tested it here and see that after the installation root has a silly PATH. There is for ex. /usr/gnu/bin but not /sbin or /usr/sbin. At the moment i try a second install to be sure that i've make no mistake. I searched for a bugreport, but found nothing. I'll write one if i can be sure of this wrong path, ok ? Bye Gerhard archlinux.de -- It's nice to be important... but it's more important to be nice.

2 2

[arch-general] Soft vs Hard links for man pages
by Allan McRae 03 Dec '07

03 Dec '07

Hi all, I was looking into bug FS#5392 [1] which details makepkg's inability to compress all man pages. Specifically, it fails when files are hard linked because gzip does not work on them. I have made a fairly simple fix for this. For a specific man page, it removes all other hard links, compresses the page and then regenerates the links. When the links are regenerated, is it preferable that they are hard linked again or should they be soft linked? I am leaning towards hard linked because that is the way they were upstream. However, the script I used to use to compress man pages in LFS had an option to turn them into soft links, so there must have been demand for soft links. Note that with soft links, it would be the first file found by "find" that everything would be linked to and that may seem strange in some contexts. Probably another reason to stick with hard links. Also, one of the comments in the bug report [2] mentions that bz2 files are not changed. I could at the same time add a change to convert these to gzip format but does that really matter? Both gzip and bzip2 are in core/base. Finally, now pacman has been moved to git I really have no idea how to create a diff! Can anybody suggest a good git cheatsheet? Cheers Allan [1]http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/5392 [2]http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/5392#comment15422

4 3

[arch-general] firefox-i18n
by Gerhard Brauer 03 Dec '07

03 Dec '07

Hello, thanks for fixing firefox (#8780). Could someone of the DEVs also build a fixed package of firefox-i18n (#8786)? Bye Gerhard -- HAL is running Windows...

4 5

[arch-general] Architecture neutral packages
by Mark Constable 02 Dec '07

02 Dec '07

Howdy folks, I'm not sure if this has been covered before but has anyone any thoughts about an architecture idependent package class for packages that are not specifically i686 or x86_64 ? For instance, I recently built a custom package for the fluidr3 soundfont that ended up being 80Mb or so and when it came time to build packages for both i686 and x86_64 I ended up with two copies of the binary package in both categories. This is quite redundant and the same principle *probably* applies to *some* other packages as well. One other example package that comes to mind is aurscripts from AUR which contains a bash script which is quite independent of architecture. My concern is that I would like to go down the path of releasing tutorials that will include podcasts and screencasts that could end being quite large and, as things currently stand, if I build them for both architectures I will end up with 2 copies. Any thoughts or workarounds on this issue ? --markc

3 2

[arch-general] Encrypted swap and suspend-to-disk
by Felix Leckow 01 Dec '07

01 Dec '07

Hi, I just did a fresh Arch install with encrypted /, /home, and swap partitions, following the LUKS Encrypted Root[1] how-to in the wiki. I have trouble getting suspend-to-disk (using uswsusp[2] from AUR) to work: creating the suspend image works fine, but I can't resume for the simple reason that the encrypted swap that contains the image gets unlocked *after* suspend tries (and fails) to read from it. Is there any way to get this to work properly? Should I file a bug report, and if so against which package? [1]http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/LUKS_Encrypted_Root [2]http://suspend.sourceforge.net/

3 3

[arch-general] Firefox -2 package bug?
by Rodrigo Coacci 30 Nov '07

30 Nov '07

[rodrigo@kuat:~ ]$ LANG=C sudo pacman -S firefox resolving dependencies... done. looking for inter-conflicts... done. Targets: firefox-2.0.0.10-2 <-------------------------- Total Package Size: 9.36 MB Proceed with installation? [Y/n] checking package integrity... done. cleaning up... done. (1/1) checking for file conflicts [#####################] 100% (1/1) upgrading firefox [#####################] 100% [rodrigo@kuat:~ ]$ LANG=C sudo pacman -Qi firefox Name : firefox Version : 2.0.0.10-1 <--------------------------- URL : http://www.mozilla.org/projects/firefox License : MPL GPL LGPL Groups : None Provides : mozilla-firefox Depends On : gtk2>=2.12.0 pango>=1.16.1 gcc-libs libxt libidl2 mozilla-common nss>=3.11.7 desktop-file-utils Removes : None Required By : firefox-i18n Conflicts With : mozilla-firefox Installed Size : 27104.34 K Packager : Alexander Baldeck <alexander(a)archlinux.org> Architecture : i686 Build Date : Tue Nov 27 17:21:26 2007 UTC Build Type : Unknown Install Date : Fri Nov 30 01:32:00 2007 UTC Install Reason : Installed as a dependency for another package Install Script : Yes Description : Standalone web browser from mozilla.org Anyone else or its just me? -- Cheers Rodrigo A computer is like air conditioning: it becomes useless when you open windows. ~Linus Torvalds

5 6

[arch-general] Mailing list rename
by Aaron Griffin 30 Nov '07

30 Nov '07

Hey guys, You may have noticed a new address up there in the From line (unless you got this via the announce list) The main mailing list has been renamed, from "arch" to "arch-general", and additionally "tur-users" has been renamed to "aur-general". The reason? The naming was unclear, especially on the tur-users list. So, please try to use this address when posting to the list (the old address will work fine for now, but I can't predict how long). Additionally, I have kept archive symlinks so that the following two are the same: http://archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-general/ http://archlinux.org/pipermail/arch/ Sorry for all of you that have to update your mail filter rules, but it's better this way - I promise 8) Thanks, Aaron

22 40

[arch-general] Old version of gnome-system-tools in [unstable]
by Hugo Doria 30 Nov '07

30 Nov '07

Hi, There is a very old version of gnome-system-tools (and system-tools-backends) package in [unstable]. A newer one is already available in [community]. Would it not be better to remove the older one? What would be the procedure to do that? I tried to contact the packager but i got no response so far. Thanks. -- []'s Hugo Doria http://hdoria.archlinux-br.org GNU/Linux user #359340 - http://counter.li.org

1 0