August 2010 - Arch-general - lists.archlinux.org

[arch-general] [signoff] kernel26-lts 2.6.32.21-1
by Tobias Powalowski 27 Aug '10

27 Aug '10

Latest kernel is in testing, please signoff for both arches. greetings tpowa -- Tobias Powalowski Archlinux Developer & Package Maintainer (tpowa) http://www.archlinux.org tpowa(a)archlinux.org

1 0

[arch-general] Interactive boot mode like in Gentoo
by joker-jar＠yandex.ru 27 Aug '10

27 Aug '10

What do you think about it? Need to be in Arch? During booting before starting daemons appears message: "Press I to enter interactive boot mode" Interactive boot allows to select action for each daemon such "start service" and "skip service"

5 4

[arch-general] Makepkg $(srcdir) detection and false-positives
by Nathan Wayde 27 Aug '10

27 Aug '10

I'm not sure if this is the correct ML or not but whatever I'll post here anyway. I was just reading the ML where the quest? to finding why makepkg warns about $srcdir was brought up and a simple grep -R... seemed to be the method of detection. Anyway it reminded me of another message on the topic last week i think where someone said that it would warn on files with debugging symbols... TL;DR makepkg does a grep -q to decide if a package contains files that reference $(srcdir), this is inadequate as it causes a false-positive on files that contain debugging symbols. This can be eliminated by specifying the option `-I` a.k.a `--binary-files=without-match` to grep which makes prevents grep from matching binary files. Rationale: the only paths that binary files should contain based on buildtime setting are path such as '/usr/share/xyz'. If the pkgbuild *accidentally* uses a variable that resolves with $srcdir in it then I'd argue that the pkgbuild is broken and will most likely break the application in other ways and will be caught before sharing the pkgbuild. I can't be the only one that tests their packages before uploading to the AUR right? On another note, shouldn't there also be a check for $pkgdir. The only cases of this that I've ran into myself have been a reference to $pkgdir causing all sorts of nonsense such as broken symlinks and incorrect resource paths.

1 0

[arch-general] rc.conf man page
by Dave Reisner 27 Aug '10

27 Aug '10

I threw together a man page for rc.conf based on info gleaned from the Wiki, rc.conf itself, and my own experiences. I offer it up for for adoption into the initscripts package along with comments, critcisms, and rotten tomatoes. The format is asciidoc, which is the same format used by pacman. If desirable, I'm willing to compile other pages for system config files in a similar manner. d

5 8

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] kde 4.5.0
by Stefano Avallone 27 Aug '10

27 Aug '10

On Tuesday 24 August 2010 19:05:46 Andrea Scarpino wrote: > On Wednesday 18 August 2010 11:06:43 Ronald van Haren wrote: > > so far I've seen people reporting the following chipsets to be > > affected, but there may be others > > intel 910 > > intel 945 > > intel 965 > > ati 3450 > > After the update to Xorg 1.9 I had to disable compositing (editing > ~/.kde4/share/config/kwinrc). I own an intel gm45 chipset. I tried to update to xorg, mesa and intel video driver from [unstable], too, and found kde unusable with compositing enabled (huge flickering). So, I reverted all the stack back to [extra]. I own an intel gm45 chipset, too. Stefano

2 2

[arch-general] restore hdd image to a bigger disk
by Marek Otahal 27 Aug '10

27 Aug '10

Hi all, I use dd command to make an image of entire /dev/sda (160GB) and back up it as netobook.hdd to an external storage. The disk contains both encrypted(dmcrypt/luks) and normal linux/win partitions. My question is, if my netbook died and I needed to recover from backup, can I just dd-copy the image to a new larger disk? Does it matter? 1/ it will do, but the size will remain 160gb ..is ok. 2/ will do & possibility to resize partitions later ..even better! :) I've searched the net, but I'd like someone to confirm it 100% works (just dd and reboot). Thanks in advance, Marek -- Marek Otahal :o)

4 8

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] [ANNOUNCEMENT DRAFT] True multilib for Arch Linux x86_64
by Mario Figueiredo 27 Aug '10

27 Aug '10

On 26-08-2010 23:09, Thomas Bächler wrote: > [multilib] > Include = /etc/pacman.d/mirrorlist Also planning a a multilib-testing?

1 0

[arch-general] flashplugin
by Jason Reardon 26 Aug '10

26 Aug '10

I just noticed flashplugin x86_64 in the 'Recent Updates' section of the frontpage. Adobe is supporting Flash for 64 bit Linux again?

4 4

[arch-general] version control system for normal user
by jewelshaw 26 Aug '10

26 Aug '10

Hi, I'm a normal user on a workstation, without root privilege. Usually, I have to test and revise the source code, while after lots of revisions, I get confused about what's new and what's old. I tried subversion, but a svn server with root privilege is required as daemon. So I wonder if there's a version control system which I can run as a normal user. Any recommendations? Thanks in advance. Jiawei Shao

9 9

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] [aur-general] Licenses, GPL3 only
by Tavian Barnes 26 Aug '10

26 Aug '10

On 26 August 2010 06:23, Ray Rashif <schivmeister(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 26 August 2010 19:16, Roberto Alsina <ralsina(a)netmanagers.com.ar> wrote: >> On Thursday 26 August 2010 08:12:23 Ronald van Haren wrote: >>> My second point was that we don't know what the future will bring. >>> Will new applications being licensed under GPL2 or later, GPL3 or >>> later, GPL4, GPL4 or later... there are lots of options. There are >>> lots of possibilities and I'm wondering if it is at all feasible to >>> create a naming scheme which will fit all. >> >> Sure: >> >> GPL2 >> GPL2+ >> GPL3 >> GPL3+ >> etc. >> >> For convenience, you may want to make GPL the equivalent of GPL2+ > > Here's what is currently being done: > > ln -s GPL2 GPL > > So in fact, we don't even have the text of the "only" version. Neither > does the FSF. > > There is no proper "example", "template" or "draft" for a GPLn-only > license. For eg. the kernel has this in its COPYING: > > <quote> > NOTE! This copyright does *not* cover user programs that use kernel > services by normal system calls - this is merely considered normal use > of the kernel, and does *not* fall under the heading of "derived work". > Also note that the GPL below is copyrighted by the Free Software > Foundation, but the instance of code that it refers to (the Linux > kernel) is copyrighted by me and others who actually wrote it. > > Also note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as the kernel > is concerned is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not > v2.2 or v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated. > > Linus Torvalds > </quote> > > That is the only difference between that license text and the one in > /usr/share/common, i.e it is a special case, a GPL2 license with an > "exception clause". Otherwise, both have exactly 2 occurences of "any > later version". > > == GPL2 == > If we want to honour cases like that, we would have to encourage the > inclusion of the license. So, our kernel should mention: > > license=('custom:GPL2') > > And include /usr/share/licenses/kernel26/COPYING. All cases of > "custom" should naturally imply that there is a license text to check > out. > > All other "normal" GPL software should have: > > license=('GPL') > > Which needs no intervention. > > == GPL3 == > Now, because the texts of the GPL2 and GPL3 are different, we cannot, > for eg. symlink anything to GPL3. But in the above manner, software > like the kernel need to have: > > license=('custom:GPL3') > > And include /usr/share/licenses/foobar/COPYING. > > While the rest of the GPL3 software can just have: > > license=('GPL3') > > == TL;DR == > Basically, we just standardise the use of: > > license=('custom:GPLn') > > For software with GPL exception texts, and include the license. Only > the kernel (and mysql? [1]) package needs to be changed to conform to > this; nothing else needs to be done. Very "future proof", IMO. > > [1] http://www.downloadsquad.com/2007/01/04/mysqls-license-is-now-gpl-2-only/ > > > -- > GPG/PGP ID: B42DDCAD > >From my understanding of copyright, it seems to me that we don't have to treat GPL2-only and GPL2+ works any differently. Both were distributed under the GPLv2, and can obviously be redistributed under the same license. Whether a package decides to add the "or any later version" extension isn't really our problem; we correctly identify the licence under which the software was _actually_ released. If someone wants to relicense it, they can go and get the actual source (which they'll need anyway) and it'll say that they are free to distribute it under later GPL versions. But of course, IANAL. -- Tavian Barnes

1 0