- Arch-dev-public - lists.archlinux.org

RFC Final Comment Period: Create new AUR moderator role
by Torsten Keßler 16 Mar '24

16 Mar '24

An RFC has now entered its Final Comment Period. In 14 days, discussion will end and the proposal will either be accepted, rejected or withdrawn https://gitlab.archlinux.org/archlinux/rfcs/-/merge_requests/19 Please visit the above link for the discussion. Summary: Create a dedicated role for the moderation of the AUR that supports and eventually replaces the Package Maintainers as the current moderators.

1 1

pacman in testing can cause some issues for packagers
by Morten Linderud 15 Mar '24

15 Mar '24

Yo, With `pacman` in testing `[core-testing]` there might be some issues for packagers that use `makepkg --geninteg` or `updpkgsums` and submitting the source packages to build.archlinux.org. As the *sums=() array will contain an integrity check for git sources in pacman 6.1 and beyond the older pacman version on build.a.o is not going to understand this and fail the build. Just set the array to 'SKIP' as usual and it should build fine. I'm not aware of any other packager issues as of writing. -- Morten Linderud PGP: 9C02FF419FECBE16

2 2

RFC: Arch Linux Ports
by David Runge 11 Mar '24

11 Mar '24

A new RFC (request for comment) has been opened here: https://gitlab.archlinux.org/archlinux/rfcs/-/merge_requests/32 Please visit the above link for discussion. Summary: Introduce "Arch Linux Ports" as testbed for unofficial architectures until they are integrated in the main Arch Linux repositories. This integration is meant to provide infrastructure and community-based support for architectures until they are fully supported by the main distribution.

1 0

pacman 6.1.0 and libalpm.so.14 rebuild
by Morten Linderud 09 Mar '24

09 Mar '24

Yo, pacman 6.1.0 is now in staging and I've made a gitlab epic and a todo for the rebuild. https://archlinux.org/todo/libalpmso-rebuild/ https://gitlab.archlinux.org/groups/archlinux/packaging/packages/-/epics/2 Currently a Rust and some C stuff is failing to build. -- Morten Linderud PGP: 9C02FF419FECBE16

2 1

Future of libdepends and libprovides
by Balló György 09 Mar '24

09 Mar '24

Hi all, Since the support for libdepends and libprovides has been removed from the recently released pacman 6.1, [1] we need to do something before adopting it to Arch Linux. Many our packages rely on libdepends and libprovides, and if makepkg would not fill the soname version and architecture, those dependencies would be broken. I mentioned this one year ago, but no further discussions happened. [2] In short term, we should revert this commit [3] at distribution level to avoid breakages. In long term, we have to decide via RFC what to do with libdepends and libprovides. We could probably make a slow, manual transition to the new 'autodeps' feature in pacman, but it still does not support optional autodeps, [4] which means that would be impossible to mark any binary deps as optional. [1] https://gitlab.archlinux.org/pacman/pacman/-/releases/v6.1.0 [2] https://lists.archlinux.org/hyperkitty/list/arch-dev-public@lists.archlinux… [3] https://gitlab.archlinux.org/pacman/pacman/-/commit/354a300cd26bb1c7e655147… [4] https://gitlab.archlinux.org/pacman/pacman/-/merge_requests/58 -- György Balló Package Maintainer

2 1

RFC: Allow all staff to create RFCs
by Kristian Klausen 05 Mar '24

05 Mar '24

A new RFC (request for comment) has been opened here: https://gitlab.archlinux.org/archlinux/rfcs/-/merge_requests/31 Please visit the above link for discussion. Summary: Grant all Arch Linux staff members, not limited to those in packaging roles, the privilege to initiate RFCs directly, aligning with the broad range of topics these documents encompass.

1 0

Consolidating our mkinitcpio hooks
by Morten Linderud 03 Mar '24

03 Mar '24

Hi, Currently we have a lot of our mkinitcpio hooks in several packages which has never been consolidated. This makes it confusing where stuff belong and what is provided where, and I really want to consolidate everything. It would help keeping up the development of the hooks, patch everything and ultimately write a test suite for mkinitcpio. I also have long term plans on moving the default hooks from busybox to systemd, but this will happen at a later point. Initially I really want to move the hooks from `cryptsetup` and `systemd`: * encrypt and sd-encrypt from core/cryptsetup * systemd and udev from core/systemd We could maybe consider a few other hooks from [core] depending on peoples opinion? We are missing a good networking hook for systemd, and that should preferably be solved at some point. A list of possibly other relevant mkinitcpio stuff: Hook Package * btrfs btrfs-progs * dmraid dmraid * mdadm mdadm * mdadm_udev mdadm * lvm2 lvm2 * sd-lvm2 lvm2 * net mkinitcpio-nfs-utils * netconf mkinitcpio-netconf # Migration It's unclear to me how we should best move these hooks. We would need to merge them upstream into `mkinitcpio` first, then remove them from the packages. Is a news item is enough for this? Or do we want to include a couple of package constraints to ensure people are accidentally removing their hooks? What are peoples opinions? -- Morten Linderud PGP: 9C02FF419FECBE16

5 10

Announcing pacquery
by Jelle van der Waa 03 Mar '24

03 Mar '24

Hi all, One of the things I've been missing for a long time is the ability to easily query package information. Pacman -S --print-format lacks some options and more importantly does not support json output. I've had a small rust utility locally which helped a lot with getting ready for the pacman rebuild. This weekend I spend some time refining it and releasing it to the repos as pacquery. An example, finding all packages which have make/check/depends on python-tomli [jelle@natrium][~/projects/pacquery]%pacquery python-tomli | jq -r '.[].required_by | join(" ")' python-flake8-black python-ipdb python-setuptools-gettext python-setuptools python-responses python-tomli-w python-fsspec sip mdformat repod mypy autopep8 python-diff-cover python-pep621 python-versioningit python-pylint python-pdm-pep517 python-sphinx-theme-builder python-pytest-cov towncrier python-isort Note that this tool uses the syncdb's so these need to be up to date and it defaults to core,extra,multilib. Greetings, Jelle van der Waa

1 0

GHC 9.2.8 enters [extra-testing]
by Felix Yan 26 Feb '24

26 Feb '24

Hi all, The long delayed GHC 9.2.x updates have been done and moved to [extra-testing]. There are a few notable changes regarding our GHC packaging: - Codegen backend has been switched back to NCG for multiple reasons: = GHC doesn't support latest LLVM and was using llvm14 in Arch. This adds up to our maintenance burden of LLVM. (IIRC LLVM 15 support was fixed only recently.) = LLVM backend actually generates slower code. We have evaluated the changes during the past years and noticed as large as 50% slower results in some benchmarks. I also got similar information from other distribution people. = LLVM backend sometimes deadlocks on compile-time. I hit this from time to time and it's not easy to reproduce reliably. (There are similar issues that are always reproducible, but got fixed already.) All `--ghc-option=-fllvm` has been removed from PKGBUILDs during the rebuild. - Build system of GHC itself has been switched to Hadrian. - Some obsolete packages have been retired from the distribution, and will be removed once the batch enters [extra]: haskell-bytestring-show haskell-random-source haskell-brittany haskell-hls-brittany-plugin haskell-hls-tactics-plugin haskell-hls-haddock-comments-plugin A lot of thanks to @Vekhir who helped me a lot for preparing this so that it's done much earlier and smoother than I expected :) As always, please report any issues and have fun! -- Regards, Felix Yan

1 0

RFC: Distribution Developer Manual
by Levente Polyak 24 Feb '24

24 Feb '24

A new RFC (request for comment) has been opened here: https://gitlab.archlinux.org/archlinux/rfcs/-/merge_requests/21 Please visit the above link for discussion. Summary: This RFC proposes the migration of Arch Linux's operational distro specifications from existing ArchWiki and other sources to a dedicated GitLab Developer Manual repository. The intention is to document how to run the distribution while leveraging GitLab's collaboration features and streamlined workflows for maintaining and evolving the resulting specifications. This change aims to centralize and enhance the efficiency of specification management while preserving the integrity of the community-contributed content in the Wiki. This request for comments is superseding `RFC-0005 <https://gitlab.archlinux.org/archlinux/rfcs/-/merge_requests/5>`_ by extending its scope to handle all distro specifications coherently instead of handling a single sub section (packaging guidelines) differently to others.

1 0