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

[arch-dev-public] Integrity Check x86_64: core, extra, community, multilib 01-04-2011
by repomaint＠archlinux.org 01 Apr '11

01 Apr '11

Traceback (most recent call last): File "/arch/cron-jobs/check_archlinux/check_packages.py", line 19, in <module> import os,re,commands,getopt,sys,tarfile,alpm ImportError: libalpm.so.5: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory

3 2

[arch-dev-public] Integrity Check i686: core, extra, community 01-04-2011
by repomaint＠archlinux.org 01 Apr '11

01 Apr '11

Traceback (most recent call last): File "/arch/cron-jobs/check_archlinux/check_packages.py", line 19, in <module> import os,re,commands,getopt,sys,tarfile,alpm ImportError: libalpm.so.5: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory

2 1

[arch-dev-public] [devtools] [PATCH] commitpkg: upload signature if found
by Rémy Oudompheng 01 Apr '11

01 Apr '11

Also move some rsync options to $rsyncopts to help with readability. Signed-off-by: Rémy Oudompheng <remy(a)archlinux.org> --- This patch was part of a patchset posted by Allan two weeks ago. Only one of his patches was merged, this is the second one, which include remarks made by Dan. Along with the dbscripts patch, it would allow current developers to begin signing their packages, and have the signatures transferred to mirrors with a smooth workflow even if signature checking is not fully integrated in pacman. commitpkg | 12 +++++++++--- 1 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/commitpkg b/commitpkg index dfc2bd1..b478989 100755 --- a/commitpkg +++ b/commitpkg @@ -104,9 +104,9 @@ for i in 'changelog' 'install'; do done # see if any limit options were passed, we'll send them to rsync -unset rsyncopts +rsyncopts="-p --chmod 'ug=rw,o=r' -c -h -L --progress" if [ "$1" = '-l' ]; then - rsyncopts="--bwlimit=$2" + rsyncopts="$rsyncopts --bwlimit=$2" shift 2 fi @@ -134,8 +134,14 @@ for _arch in ${arch[@]}; do continue 2 fi + sigfile="${pkgfile}.sig" + if [ -f "${sigfile}" ]; then + echo "WARNING: No package signature found" + sigfile="" + fi + echo -n 'uploading ' - rsync -p --chmod 'ug=rw,o=r' -c -h -L --progress $rsyncopts --partial "${pkgfile}" -e ssh "$server:staging/$repo/${pkgfile##*/}" || abort + rsync -e ssh $rsyncopts --partial "${pkgfile}" ${sigfile} "$server:staging/$repo/${pkgfile##*/}" || abort done archrelease $repo-${_arch} || abort done -- 1.7.4.2

3 8

Re: [arch-dev-public] [initscripts] Linux distributions and /run/
by Tom Gundersen 31 Mar '11

31 Mar '11

On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 2:22 PM, Andrea Scarpino <andrea(a)archlinux.org> wrote: > On Thursday 31 March 2011 14:15:37 Tom Gundersen wrote: >> I guess the list can be generated by grepping all the PKGBUILDs for >> writes to /var/run and /var/lock. > I guess that instead of grepping PKGBUILDs we've to grep the package files > list. The packages that need to be fixed are: avahi consolekit cups dbus-core dmraid hal minbif networkmanager sane udisks Some might already be creating the required files on their own, I'll investigate this and update the bug report. At any rate, fixing the remaining packages should be trivial. Cheers, Tom

2 2

Re: [arch-dev-public] [initscripts] Linux distributions and /run/
by Tom Gundersen 31 Mar '11

31 Mar '11

On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 2:22 PM, Andrea Scarpino <andrea(a)archlinux.org> wrote: > On Thursday 31 March 2011 14:15:37 Tom Gundersen wrote: >> I guess the list can be generated by grepping all the PKGBUILDs for >> writes to /var/run and /var/lock. > I guess that instead of grepping PKGBUILDs we've to grep the package files > list. D'oh, very good point! -t

1 0

Re: [arch-dev-public] [initscripts] Linux distributions and /run/
by Tom Gundersen 31 Mar '11

31 Mar '11

On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 1:56 PM, Andrea Scarpino <andrea(a)archlinux.org> wrote: > About FS#18157, many of them have been fixed (mysql, mpd, httpd...), but we > need a complete list. I guess the list can be generated by grepping all the PKGBUILDs for writes to /var/run and /var/lock. Maybe it would be worth adding a warning to makepkg if files are written to /var/run, /var/lock, /tmp or /run? Cheers, Tom

3 2

[arch-dev-public] [arch-projects] [initscripts] Linux distributions and /run/
by Tom Gundersen 31 Mar '11

31 Mar '11

On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 1:21 PM, Thomas Bächler <thomas(a)archlinux.org> wrote: > This was discussed in a bug report iirc, here is some summary: > http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/Linux-distributions-to-include-run-d… > > Apparently, many tools (among them udev) will soon require a /run/ > directory that is mounted early (as tmpfs). It is probably a good idea > to add this to the filesystem and initscripts packages. I have just been reading up on this, and I agree that we should add it. At some point in the future we should probably consider symlinking /var/run to /run and /var/lock to /run/lock, but we would have to implement <https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/18157> first, and /run is useful even without the symlinks. My understanding of the situation is that it is ok or /var/run and /run to be different, but please let me know if I'm wrong on this. I guess we'll need to add the mountpoint to the filesystem package (possibly with permissions 0000 to avoid accidents) and mount the tmpfs early in rc.sysinit (I'll write the patch as soon as people agree that this is the right thing to do). Cheers, Tom

1 0

[arch-dev-public] [initscripts] Linux distributions and /run/
by Thomas Bächler 31 Mar '11

31 Mar '11

This was discussed in a bug report iirc, here is some summary: http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/Linux-distributions-to-include-run-d… Apparently, many tools (among them udev) will soon require a /run/ directory that is mounted early (as tmpfs). It is probably a good idea to add this to the filesystem and initscripts packages.

3 2

[arch-dev-public] Removing network utilities from base group?
by Daniel Isenmann 29 Mar '11

29 Mar '11

Hi, I have a feature request (https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/22481) since January which stated that rp-pppoe should be removed from the base group. Described in the details he stated that every network package should be removed from the base group and should only be in core. I'm not really have a opinion to that topic, so what do you think about it? For me we can leave it as it is and do nothing at this topic, then I will close this feature request as "won't implement". -Daniel

3 2

[arch-dev-public] [signoff] kernel26-lts 2.6.32.36-1
by Andreas Radke 29 Mar '11

29 Mar '11

Upstream update with security fixes. Please signoff. -Andy

1 0