- Arch-ports - lists.archlinux.org

[arch-ports] MC need slang
by Jaagup Repän 25 Jun '06

25 Jun '06

Hello, I found missing depend: mc needs slang Jaagup Repän

1 0

[arch-ports] [x86_64] all packages are going to the repos
by Andreas Radke 20 Jun '06

20 Jun '06

everybody may soon switch over to archlinux.org for all repos. first our new core packages are going to current. read here if you are unsure what is happening. all tests have been successfull until now. don't break the update progress at any point! http://www.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-ports/2006-June/000254.html give me and the devs some time to update all the packages. as you may know the kernel and nvidia/ati and other kernel module packages have to be compiled with the same gcc version. so wait until we will have new kernel packages or fallback to opensource drivers if you are affected. So good luck and happy pacman -Syu'ing. AndyRTR

1 0

[arch-ports] extra at archlinux.org
by Andreas Radke 20 Jun '06

20 Jun '06

we the devs have done the update to the packages from http://arch64.org/packages/testing/ so we now use glibc2.4 and gcc4.1.1. we will now start to build updates. until you not update to the testing packages it's not recommended to use the extra repo at archlinux.org. we hope to bring all the testing stuff soon to current/extra for regular usage. everybody is waiting for the ivtv driver for the new kernel... andyrtr

1 0

[arch-ports] [arch64] glibc/gcc update in testing
by Andreas Radke 19 Jun '06

19 Jun '06

well, i still don't have access to a testing repo on archlinux.org. so i use the old one from arch64.org for testing this major upgrade. http://arch64.org/packages/testing/ bin86 binutils gcc glibc kernel-headers libstdc++5 Most important change: we move our libs from /lib64 and /usr/lib64 to /lib and /usr/lib. We also remove the old symlinks. It was really tricky to get pacman do this update. I have tested as much as possible and at least it worked well here on my system. But be warned: if the update fails you will probably loose the ability to make a rollback. Without a working glibc you can only load static binaries. So i suggest to leave open a root instance of "mc" and Gaim/Xchat. When the Update fails use "mc" to copy or rename the lib path to lib64 and create the old symlinks. So watch the structure carefully before updating. If anybody wants to see the pkgbuilds or *.install files let me know. So good luck to everybody. Hope to get positive reports so we can soon move the updates together with arch32 to current. AndyRTR

3 3

Re: [arch-ports] [ArchPPC] Help regarding the install procedure
by james＠nullstudios.com 16 Jun '06

16 Jun '06

> James Turner wrote: > > Hi, I'm a new archlinux user and new to this mailing list, so please > > take it easy on me. I am having a hell of a time getting archlinux > > installed on my 12in PowerBook 1.33 GHz. I have followed the steps > > under "*Installation on newworld machines" numerous times with various > > success. Most recently quickinst seems to stale for no reason while > > downloading packages. The one time I managed to get archlinux > > completely installed the kernel would not boot. If anyone has more up > > to date instructions or any ideas why the quickinst script might be > > stalling please help. Once I get the base system installed I can always > > compile my own kernel. I appreciate any help anyone might be able to > > offer.* > > Except for the devfs vs udev issues, the guide still fully applies. It > may be that you run into problems if you use the sample yaboot.conf. > Did you use ofpath to determine your "device" and "partition" lines? > > You may try the latest snapshot which is here: > > ftp://ftp.archlinuxppc.org/iso/snapshots/2006-06-14_archppc.iso.bz2 > > It still has a few flaws which need to be fixed: > * does not create device nodes for harddrives use instead: > > cd /dev > mknod hda b 3 0 > mknod hda1 b 3 1 > mknod hda2 b 3 2 > mknod hda3 b 3 3 > mknod hdb b 4 1 > > a.s.o > > Cheers, > > Alex > Alex, Thanks for your help. I did manage to get ArchLinux installed just fine last night. I followed the above procedure. I also had to mknod nvram c 10 144, so yaboot would install correctly and I had to run modprobe loop so the kernel would install correctly. I can proudly say I am writing this from ArchLinux on my 12in PowerBook.

4 4

[arch-ports] [ArchPPC] pacman package question
by James Turner 16 Jun '06

16 Jun '06

On a completely different note, is there any reason why a package like gtkmm would show up when searched for on archlinuxppc.org but pacman -S gtkmm doesn't find the package?

2 2

[arch-ports] [ArchPPC] Help regarding the install procedure
by James Turner 16 Jun '06

16 Jun '06

Hi, I'm a new archlinux user and new to this mailing list, so please take it easy on me. I am having a hell of a time getting archlinux installed on my 12in PowerBook 1.33 GHz. I have followed the steps under "Installation on newworld machines" numerous times with various success. Most recently quickinst seems to stale for no reason while downloading packages. The one time I managed to get archlinux completely installed the kernel would not boot. If anyone has more up to date instructions or any ideas why the quickinst script might be stalling please help. Once I get the base system installed I can always compile my own kernel. I appreciate any help anyone might be able to offer.

2 1

[arch-ports] [arch64] elinks works
by Ivan Stankovic 01 Jun '06

01 Jun '06

Hi, elinks compiles and runs fine on arch64. -- Ivan Stankovic, ivan.stankovic(a)fer.hr

1 0

[arch-ports] [Fwd: Re: [arch-dev] x64 some thoughts]
by Alexander Baldeck 25 May '06

25 May '06

-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [arch-dev] x64 some thoughts Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 23:40:23 +0200 From: Alexander Baldeck <kth5(a)archlinuxppc.org> Reply-To: Development Discussion for Arch Linux <arch-dev(a)archlinux.org> To: Development Discussion for Arch Linux <arch-dev(a)archlinux.org> References: <200605232310.25106.t.powa(a)gmx.de> <1148419857.3660.14.camel(a)server.groot.local> Jan de Groot wrote: > On Tue, 2006-05-23 at 23:10 +0200, Tobias Powalowski wrote: > >> Hi >> hmm i don't know how this was all organized but i see some real problems in >> x64 organisation: >> - cvs get broken by ppl that don'T even inform us about their doing >> - they should be at least on the dev team that we can talk to them and they >> can inform us about their doing. >> - me is scared by those ppl that say on forum they want to be more bleeding >> edge then i686, when all packages should be the same status not that one >> port runs in front of the other. >> - there was no discussion about that at all on ML how to handle that stuff. >> - the new gcc,glibc stuff rebuild for 0.8 will be a big task so this must be >> organised well, else it becomes a fiasco. >> >> so please hear that call as it is now it causes a lot of trouble. >> any other opinions out there? >> > > One more thing: the amd64 port comes without multilib support. lib -> > lib64 symlinks are all over the place, etc. IMHO we should have some > quality standards for this: > > - kernel should support 32bit binaries (AFAIK it does) > - all libs should be installed in either /lib64 or /lib, not both. > - 32bit runtime libraries and crosscompilers should be available as > separate packages. Libs should go in /lib, or if this is chosen for > 64bit already, /lib32. > > Packages should be in sync with i686, not ahead of it. One thing that > doesn't look so good: why did we start this project with x86_64 in the > first place, the ppc port is much more grown up. If ppc would have > worked out, we could have included x86_64 later then. > > The thing is that archppc does not yet have an installer, this is the biggest flaw for making it official. I'm tired of calling for help and am quite proficient to do it manually with some live cd. Even then, I seriously lack the time to spend like 3 hours in a row not only waiting but actually doing something. :) So if that issue is being "fixed" somehow, I would agree to make it officially available. Not before! A 64/32bit hybrid sooner or later will of course be there for ppc as well. There's the G5 and POWER5 which are pure 64bit. They are backwards compatible just like the x86_64 though, meaning they can run 32bit code. With one dev? Hell no, impossible! Cheers, Alex _______________________________________________ arch-dev mailing list arch-dev(a)archlinux.org http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch-dev

2 1

Re: [arch-ports] [arch-dev] x64 some thoughts
by Jason Chu 23 May '06

23 May '06

On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 11:30:57PM +0200, Jan de Groot wrote: > On Tue, 2006-05-23 at 23:10 +0200, Tobias Powalowski wrote: > > Hi > > hmm i don't know how this was all organized but i see some real problems in > > x64 organisation: > > - cvs get broken by ppl that don'T even inform us about their doing > > - they should be at least on the dev team that we can talk to them and they > > can inform us about their doing. > > - me is scared by those ppl that say on forum they want to be more bleeding > > edge then i686, when all packages should be the same status not that one > > port runs in front of the other. > > - there was no discussion about that at all on ML how to handle that stuff. > > - the new gcc,glibc stuff rebuild for 0.8 will be a big task so this must be > > organised well, else it becomes a fiasco. > > > > so please hear that call as it is now it causes a lot of trouble. > > any other opinions out there? > > One more thing: the amd64 port comes without multilib support. lib -> > lib64 symlinks are all over the place, etc. IMHO we should have some > quality standards for this: > > - kernel should support 32bit binaries (AFAIK it does) > - all libs should be installed in either /lib64 or /lib, not both. > - 32bit runtime libraries and crosscompilers should be available as > separate packages. Libs should go in /lib, or if this is chosen for > 64bit already, /lib32. > > Packages should be in sync with i686, not ahead of it. One thing that > doesn't look so good: why did we start this project with x86_64 in the > first place, the ppc port is much more grown up. If ppc would have > worked out, we could have included x86_64 later then. While I love being a go-between from the x86_64 community and the devs, we should probably take these discussions over to the arch-ports list so that everyone can comment on them. I'm CC'ing that list with this email. Jason -- If you understand, things are just as they are. If you do not understand, things are just as they are.

1 0