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

[arch-dev-public] Gimp-2.4 beta to current?
by Tobias Kieslich 24 Aug '07

24 Aug '07

Hi, I like to bring gimp-2.4 (rc1) to current. the 2.3.x is fairly stable for a while and I actually use it exclusively. Any objections? -T

4 5

[arch-dev-public] absence from 23.8 - 15.9
by Tobias Powalowski 23 Aug '07

23 Aug '07

Hi guys, im on vacation the next days, don't know if i have an inet connection on those days. have fun and keep arch rockin. I orphaned quite some packages last weekend so feel free to adopt them, the workload is too high for me and it's better to have experts on the packages then just bumping the releases. thanks greetings tpowa -- Tobias Powalowski Archlinux Developer & Package Maintainer (tpowa) http://www.archlinux.org tpowa(a)archlinux.org

2 1

[arch-dev-public] Major error with kernel26ck
by Tom K 22 Aug '07

22 Aug '07

Hi all. I would like to apologise for a fairly spectacular mess I have made with kernel26ck. The gory details are as follows. During the 2.6.22 test period, I built a kernel26ck package with the SLUB memory allocator enabled, for my own use. I submitted this package to extra in error, and compiled all external module packages against it. When I was building the current version, 2.6.22.3.ck1-1, I noticed my mistake, and changed back to the SLAB allocator, as used in the stock kernel. However, I did not appreciate the significance of this change at the time. Shortly after the SLAB-enabled package was released, I received reports that some of the existing module packages did not work with it. To solve this, I rebuilt all the *-ck modules against the new kernel version. I incorrectly assumed that the problem had been caused by incompatibility between the final -ck patchset release, 2.6.22-ck1, and the 2.6.22.3 update from kernel.org. To avoid further problems, I decided to announce the retirement of kernel26ck. I would like to thank Andy for identifying the correct cause of the problem i.e. the change from SLUB to SLAB. Andy is also of the opinion that we should either continue to update the package as long as it is in our repos, or else remove it now, and he cites today's 2.6.22.4 update, which provides a security update, as a good example of this. Taking all of the above into consideration, I now intend to continue maintaining kernel26ck until we move to the 2.6.23 kernel, at which time I will remove it from extra. I will amend Arch News accordingly. Once again, my apologies to all for this screw-up, and my thanks to Andy for letting me know. Regards Tom.

3 3

[arch-dev-public] base group
by Roman Kyrylych 22 Aug '07

22 Aug '07

Hi! IIRC this was mentioned some time ago, but I don't remember why it was not implemented. Why don't we have the "base" package group? IMO it would be nice if user would be able to do pacman -S base to get all base packages installed (e.g. in chroot or when installing from another distro). -- Roman Kyrylych (Роман Кирилич)

5 10

[arch-dev-public] License cleanup
by Travis Willard 21 Aug '07

21 Aug '07

Hey guys, You may have noticed I added license information to a handful (~27ish) packages in [extra] - this email is just to keep you informed as to what I'm doing. Right now, I'm just adding license fields where I can. For many of them, I'm simply searching Gentoo's package search and adding the licenses that come up there. If the package in question isn't in Gentoo's tree, I've been looking at the website and downloading sources. For custom licenses, I'm even adding the command at the end of the build() function to install the license to the proper directory. What I'm NOT doing: . Rebuilding any of these packages - I doubt users would appreciate needing to redownload their whole systems to get updated license information only. . Updating any of these packages to newest version - I've already come across a couple that are definitively out of date, one whose sources I couldn't even download to add the proper license-installation instruction into the build() method. I'm not updating these - the point of what I'm doing is to add licenses, not make our entire repo uptodate. Maybe that'll come later. ;) In any case, I think I'm done for tonight; I'm feeling pretty tired. If anyone wants to join me in this crusade, check out my thread entitled "Useful Scripts", grab the script that checks for bad licenses, and give it a run in your cvs dir for extra or unstable or community (making sure to run cvs update first!) - that'll give you a niiiice long list of packages that need tending to. -- Travis

3 8

[arch-dev-public] make nvram world-readable?
by Damir Perisa 20 Aug '07

20 Aug '07

i'd like to change the nvram device permissions rule in udev.rules we provide. at the moment the line in /etc/udev/rules.d/udev.rules is the following: KERNEL=="nvram", NAME="misc/%k", SYMLINK+="%k" what leads to [damir@Apollon dev]$ ls -la /dev/misc/nvram crw-rw---- 1 root root 10, 144 2007-08-17 18:40 /dev/misc/nvram being not accessible otherwise than root. and i want to change it to KERNEL=="nvram", NAME="misc/%k", SYMLINK+="%k" MODE="0666" so that any app or user can read nvram. this is needed by some tools for some hardware (e.g. thinkpads and buttons). alternatively i would allow only group to read it and have a group called nvram. what do you think? i know that everybody having a thinkpad is changing permissions to nvram device on arch boxes the one or other way... lets settle this the right way at the root ;) thanx + have a nice weekend, Damir (from the new laptop - almost running as i want it *smile*)

4 5

[arch-dev-public] new pam 0.99.x in testing
by Tobias Powalowski 19 Aug '07

19 Aug '07

Hi please try new pam in testing it wasn't updated since ages and i cleaned up the whole PKGBUILD. Report issues immediatly. thanks greetings tpowa -- Tobias Powalowski Archlinux Developer & Package Maintainer (tpowa) http://www.archlinux.org tpowa(a)archlinux.org

2 2

[arch-dev-public] backport of symlink fix for pacman?
by Jan de Groot 17 Aug '07

17 Aug '07

Every day we get new bugreports of perl not working because a symlink got overwritten. This is a bug in pacman that has been fixed according to git, but there's still no new release with this fix. Any drawbacks of applying http://projects.archlinux.org/git/?p=pacman.git;a=commit;h=7a42e24400499873c 3b9e1e2315edc808d753734 to the current version of pacman?

3 3

[arch-dev-public] qemu-kvm updates
by Roman Kyrylych 17 Aug '07

17 Aug '07

Hi! We decided that we provide kvm modules that are shipped in kernel, which is good in terms of stability. But what about the userspace? Our qemu contains qemu-kvm from kvm-28 which is the same version as in .22 kernel. Will qemu-kvm version 35 work with kvm module version 28? If yes then I think it probably would be better to have more up-to-date userspace. Can anyone test this and/or say is this a good idea or not? -- Roman Kyrylych (Роман Кирилич)

2 1

[arch-dev-public] testing and xf86-video-intel
by Jason Chu 15 Aug '07

15 Aug '07

I'm trying to update my system and it can't find xf86-video-intel. It's looking for version 2.1.0-3, but the package is 2.1.1-1. I thought the db-testing scripts were supposed to fix things like this... I sure hope that it was used in this case... I've re-added 2.1.1-1 to the testing db. Jason

1 0