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

[arch-dev-public] FroSCon 2019
by Jelle van der Waa 22 Mar '19

22 Mar '19

Hi Archers, This there is another FroSCon 2019 organized! Last year we had a dev room on sunday and two talks, if enough dev/tu/community members want to hold a talk then I can organize a room again :-) [1] https://www.froscon.de/en/cfp/ -- Jelle van der Waa

1 0

[arch-dev-public] Co-maintainers and less time for packaging
by Morten Linderud 21 Mar '19

21 Mar '19

Yo! As some might be aware, I'm finishing up a master thesis that is due 1st of June. Because of this my time is going to be limited closer to the delivery date. To try relieve some stress I'm giving a heads up that the time spent on packaging is going to be strained going forward. Since we have been trying to focus on co-maintainers for each package, I have collected a list of packages where I am the sole maintainer. Feel free to adopt any package on the list :) I can probably share nvchecker setup for most of them. acpid bucklespring containerd delve dep git-lfs go-md2man gopass hexedit hy i3-gaps influxdb jgmenu jp2a minicom mopidy mypy neofetch font-awesome pass-otp pdfjs protege python-argparse python-autobahn python-babel python2-docs python2-functools32 python-hidapi python-jsonrpclib-pelix python-keyutils python-ldap python-m2crypto python-nltk python-pew python-pipenv python-psycopg2 python-pyaes python-pydocstyle python-pyserial python-send2trash python-shutilwhich python-sqlobject python-sqlparse python-xlib python-argparse python-autobahn python-babel python-docs python-hidapi python-jsonrpclib-pelix python-keyutils python-ldap python-m2crypto python-mypy_extensions python-nltk python-pew python-pipenv python-psycopg2 python-pyaes python-pydocstyle python-pypeg2 python-pyserial python-pywal python-send2trash python-shutilwhich python-sqlobject python-sqlparse python-typed-ast python-xlib restic udiskie qutebrowser might need an extra hand as well :) -- Morten Linderud PGP: 9C02FF419FECBE16

8 7

[arch-dev-public] Removing wine-staging-nine, replaced with wine-nine
by Laurent Carlier 21 Mar '19

21 Mar '19

Patches for nine support has not been available anymore since wine 4.1; instead of that a nine standalone version is. Plans is to remove wine-staging-nine from multilib repo and replace it with wine-nine package, which supports both wine and wine-staging packages. -- Laurent Carlier http://www.archlinux.org

1 0

[arch-dev-public] New build server for TUs and devs
by Sven-Hendrik Haase 20 Mar '19

20 Mar '19

Hi all, Thanks to Hetzner sponsoring our new server [0] we now have a new box with 48 threads, 128 GiB RAM, and 2 NVMes in RAID0 with a total of 1.75 TiB of storage. Should be plenty fast for the time being. The new server is now available at dragon.archlinux.org for all of your package building pleasures. All TUs and devs have had all of their keys added. pkgbuild.com will soon be pointed to this new server so keep that in mind in case your SSH tells you the hostname changed. IMPORTANT: No data has been migrated from soyuz. It is your responsibility to transfer any data you might want on dragon. soyuz will stay available for at least a month from now (probably more, don't worry, there will be another mail for its termination), so you have plenty of time to migrate any data. dragon will not host public_html in your home dirs. That will move somewhere else. dragon is very strictly a build box and no other services should run on there. soyuz hasn't been changed in any way and if you really want to keep using that, you can do so until it gets terminated. [0] https://twitter.com/svenstaro/status/1107938411254431744

1 0

[arch-dev-public] Follow-up on the “Proposal: minimal base system”
by Bruno Pagani 18 Mar '19

18 Mar '19

Hi there, This is a follow-up on the last month discussion about a “minimal base system”. # Reminder of the starting statement > There is no strict definition of what a minimal Arch Linux system installation must contain. However in reality we mostly don’t add any packages that are in the base group as a dependency to other packages, which basically makes it a hard requirement. The corollary being that, since we don’t actually enforce `base` as a policy, some breakage might (and does) happen when people remove part of it from their system. Following on that, the discussion was about implementing a metapackage with a stricter set of packages to be required as installed on any Arch system, and whether or not to keep the `base` group in addition. From this discussion and parallel ones that happened on IRC, I can summarize three important questions (that are, notice, actually independent of the exact content of base-whatever): 1. There is a disagreement on the `base` group purpose: should it just be a convenient helper to bootstrap an Arch system quickly and/or also be used as a set of assumed installed dependencies? 2. Are people actually wanting to be able to assume some installed dependencies at all, and if so, what are they argument(s) for not listing some, e.g. `glibc`? I haven’t seen many apart from “don’t want to list tons of dependency in my PKGBUILD” or “no sane system wouldn’t have it”, and we can discuss whether those are valid one or not, but since the discussion wasn’t happening on that point particularly, there may also be some others that have escaped me. 3. Although it could seems not deeply related at first, what about transitive dependencies (e.g. package A depending on B and C, but only listing B because this one already depends on C)? Here again, breakage happens because of this (when B stop depending on C, which A maintainer cannot be reasonably expected to track), and I’ve only heard “don’t want to list tons of dependency in my PKGBUILD”. Before going further on any proposal in those directions, I’ve thought it surely requires more input, and not only from the ~10 people at most that already participated in those discussions (but still should, because points have changed a bit) since we are discussing distro-wide policy on dependencies here. Regards, Bruno

5 9

[arch-dev-public] Proposal: minimal base system
by Levente Polyak 18 Mar '19

18 Mar '19

# Proposal There is no strict definition of what a minimal Arch Linux system installation must contain. However in reality we mostly don’t add any packages that are in the base group as a dependency to other packages, which basically makes it a hard requirement. The current way of defining a minimal system via a group is non-optimal for the following reasons: - A group can’t enforce installation of packages when being extended or modified - The current base group contains lots of unneeded packages - Manually getting rid of some of the packages may result in broken deps To overcome the disadvantages, a better way to handle a strictly defined set would be a simple virtual base-system package that depends on the bare minimum of what we define as given and required. This virtual package can be changed/extended and every installation will pull it in during the next system upgrade. Everything that won’t be part of base-system needs to be added as a dependency to all requiring packages; alternatively don't omit any first level runtime dependencies at all. This package should only depend on strictly required explicit packages to get a working minimal Arch Linux system. The proposed end result is: - base: convenient helper group for quickly getting a working system when installing, must include the new base-system package - base-system: package defining the minimum dependencies for a working base runtime Possible candidates for the virtual package: #### Base requirements: - filesystem - gcc-libs - glibc - bash - coreutils #### Distro requirements: - licenses - pacman - systemd #### Some POSIX tools - coreutils - file - findutils - gawk - grep - procps-ng - sed - tar - gettext - pciutils - psmisc - shadow - util-linux - bzip2 - gzip - xz #### Some networking tools - iputils - iproute2 ## Alternative Another approach would be, assuming we want to properly support tiny containers, to reduce the above list even further to a bare minimum of running pacman and not omit any further 1st level runtime dependencies in our packages. ## Short summary Required: - Use a virtual package instead of a group for the bare minimum Option 1: - Define a base-system virtual package as a required set of packages containing something like a POSIX interactive runtime environment Option 2: - Reduce the set even further to aid tiny containers and don't omit any other 1st level runtime dependency in packages - We could additionally still have a smaller set for a POSIX interactive runtime environment for convenience PS: Please focus on the abstract before bikeshedding whether single packages should or should not be added cheers, Levente

11 31

[arch-dev-public] Dropping trilinos
by Alad Wenter 17 Mar '19

17 Mar '19

With the netcdf rebuild in sight, I will be dropping trilinos. Maintaining it requires significant resources which I do not have at the moment (half a dozen of failing tests in the release version, and 11 hours per -j4 build on soyuz). If anyone is willing to take over maintenance, please let me know before the netcdf migration is complete. Otherwise I will drop it back to AUR. Alad

1 0

[arch-dev-public] Vacation (2019-03-21 -- 2019-04-04)
by David Runge 15 Mar '19

15 Mar '19

Hey all, I'll be on vacation in the timespan mentioned in the title of this mail. In case there are any urgent package updates required, feel free to do them! I might be available online from time to time, but most likely will not have the time to package anything. Best, David -- https://sleepmap.de

1 0

[arch-dev-public] Edit /etc/php/php.ini config file in chroot
by NicoHood 12 Feb '19

12 Feb '19

Hi, I am using devtools to create a package with php scripts. It uses composer to build the package. I get the error: The requested PHP extension ext-iconv * is missing from your system. Install or enable PHP's iconv extension. This can be solved by editing the config file and add: extension=iconv The config file is only accessible by root. How do I edit this config file within the PKGBUILD if its build by devtools? Any idea? ~Nico

3 2

[arch-dev-public] Archweb migration
by Jelle van der Waa 08 Feb '19

08 Feb '19

Hi All, Tommorow night (CET) I will update archweb (archlinux.org) to Python 3. We've already tested it on a staging server and it seems to work well so tommorow I'll update it on our main server. This will mean that archlinux.org will be unavailabe for ~ 30 minutes since the upgrade requires some manual work with removing and creating a new virtualenv. -- Jelle van der Waa

1 1