- Arch-general - lists.archlinux.org

Re: [arch-general] ibm java installation path environment
by message 19 Apr '14

19 Apr '14

On 2014-04-19 11:47, arch-general-request(a)archlinux.org wrote: >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 7 >> Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2014 08:35:16 +0000 >> From: message <letter(a)openmailbox.org> >> Subject: Re: [arch-general] ibm java installation path environment >> >> On 2014-04-18 12:35, message wrote: >>> Readers, >>> >>> IBM Java was installed into the directory 'usr/local': >>> >>> $ /usr/local/java/jre/bin/java -version >>> java version "1.8.0" >>> Java(TM) SE Runtime Environment (build pxi3280ea-20130422_01) >>> IBM J9 VM (build 2.7, JRE 1.8.0 Linux x86-32 20130419_145797 (JIT >>> enabled, AOT enabled) >>> J9VM - R27_Java827_Beta_3_20130419_2138_B145797 >>> JIT - r13.b02_20130419_36653 >>> GC - R27_Java827_Beta_3_20130419_2138_B145797 >>> J9CL - 20130419_145797) >>> JCL - 20130410_01 based on Oracle jdk8-b80 >>> >>> The file 'bashrc' was edited: No joke; latest bashrc edit: GNU nano 2.2.6 File: ./.bashrc # .bashrc # User specific aliases and functions # Source global definitions if [ -f /etc/bashrc ]; then . /etc/bashrc fi export PATH=$PATH:$JAVA_HOME/bin export JAVA_HOME=/usr/local/java/jre In home directory, keyboard 'ja+TAB' (i.e. use unix auto-complete function) shows: $ ja jack_alias jack_monitor_client jack_bufsize jack_netsource jack_connect jack_property jack_disconnect jack_rec jack_evmon jack_samplerate jack_freewheel jack_server_control jack_impulse_grabber jack_session_notify jack_iodelay jack_showtime jack_latent_client jack_simple_client jack_load jack_simple_session_client jack_load_test jack_transport jack_lsp jack_transport_client jack_metro jack_unload jack_midi_dump jack_wait jack_midiseq jackd jack_midisine jasper 'Java' does not appear in the list above, but java is installed as shown originally above. -- digest-mode subscriber; please cc to maintain message thread

2 1

[arch-general] eye candy wall paper
by message 19 Apr '14

19 Apr '14

Readers, For those interested, someone has published some nice gnu/linux logos wallpaper, including Archlinux: https://dspora.org/posts/53049

4 3

[arch-general] ibm java installation path environment
by message 19 Apr '14

19 Apr '14

Readers, IBM Java was installed into the directory 'usr/local': $ /usr/local/java/jre/bin/java -version java version "1.8.0" Java(TM) SE Runtime Environment (build pxi3280ea-20130422_01) IBM J9 VM (build 2.7, JRE 1.8.0 Linux x86-32 20130419_145797 (JIT enabled, AOT enabled) J9VM - R27_Java827_Beta_3_20130419_2138_B145797 JIT - r13.b02_20130419_36653 GC - R27_Java827_Beta_3_20130419_2138_B145797 J9CL - 20130419_145797) JCL - 20130410_01 based on Oracle jdk8-b80 The file 'bashrc' was edited: GNU nano 2.2.6 File: ./.bashrc # .bashrc # User specific aliases and functions # Source global definitions if [ -f /etc/bashrc ]; then . /etc/bashrc fi export PATH=$PATH:/usr/local/bin export JAVA_HOME=/usr/local/java/jre/bin/java After saving the bashrc file, sign-out and sign-in, the java program is not accessible via command terminal 'java -version', the entire path has to be entered. What is my mistake please?

4 5

Re: [arch-general] ibm java installation path environment
by message 19 Apr '14

19 Apr '14

On 2014-04-19 08:35, arch-general-request(a)archlinux.org wrote: > ------------------------------ > > Message: 7 > Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2014 08:35:16 +0000 > From: message <letter(a)openmailbox.org> > Subject: Re: [arch-general] ibm java installation path environment > > On 2014-04-18 12:35, message wrote: >> Readers, >> >> IBM Java was installed into the directory 'usr/local': >> >> $ /usr/local/java/jre/bin/java -version >> java version "1.8.0" >> Java(TM) SE Runtime Environment (build pxi3280ea-20130422_01) >> IBM J9 VM (build 2.7, JRE 1.8.0 Linux x86-32 20130419_145797 (JIT >> enabled, AOT enabled) >> J9VM - R27_Java827_Beta_3_20130419_2138_B145797 >> JIT - r13.b02_20130419_36653 >> GC - R27_Java827_Beta_3_20130419_2138_B145797 >> J9CL - 20130419_145797) >> JCL - 20130410_01 based on Oracle jdk8-b80 >> >> The file 'bashrc' was edited: >> >> GNU nano 2.2.6 File: ./.bashrc >> >> # .bashrc >> >> # User specific aliases and functions >> >> # Source global definitions >> if [ -f /etc/bashrc ]; then >> . /etc/bashrc >> fi >> export PATH=$PATH:/usr/local/bin >> export JAVA_HOME=/usr/local/java/jre/bin/java >> >> After saving the bashrc file, sign-out and sign-in, the java program >> is not accessible via command terminal 'java -version', the entire >> path has to be entered. >> >> What is my mistake please? > > The path was changed to: > > export PATH=$PATH:/usr/local/bin:/usr/local/java/jre/bin/java > > but the command terminal 'java -version' is not recognised. > java recognition fails after change of the file and sign-out, sign-in: # .bashrc # User specific aliases and functions # Source global definitions if [ -f /etc/bashrc ]; then . /etc/bashrc fi export PATH=$PATH:/usr/local/java/jre/bin/java export JAVA_HOME=/usr/local/java/jre/bin/java Any other advice please? -- digest-mode subscriber; please cc to maintain message thread

1 0

[arch-general] KDE update and baloo
by Genes Lists 19 Apr '14

19 Apr '14

After the update to 4.13 - i have baloo sucking up cpu cylces. I did go to the desktop search and add every single file system/directory to the 'dont scan' list. So there should be nothing left to scan. Didn't help - it's still running 2 hours later ... anyone know how to stop this selfish cpu hog? thanks!

5 5

Re: [arch-general] ibm java installation path environment
by message 19 Apr '14

19 Apr '14

On 2014-04-18 12:42, arch-general-request(a)archlinux.org wrote: > ------------------------------ > > Message: 8 > Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2014 14:42:40 +0200 > From: Heiko Becker <heikobecker92(a)gmail.com> > Subject: Re: [arch-general] ibm java installation path environment > > Am 18.04.2014 14:35 schrieb "message" <letter(a)openmailbox.org>: >> >> Readers, >> >> IBM Java was installed into the directory 'usr/local': >> >> $ /usr/local/java/jre/bin/java -version >> java version "1.8.0" >> Java(TM) SE Runtime Environment (build pxi3280ea-20130422_01) >> IBM J9 VM (build 2.7, JRE 1.8.0 Linux x86-32 20130419_145797 (JIT > enabled, AOT enabled) >> J9VM - R27_Java827_Beta_3_20130419_2138_B145797 >> JIT - r13.b02_20130419_36653 >> GC - R27_Java827_Beta_3_20130419_2138_B145797 >> J9CL - 20130419_145797) >> JCL - 20130410_01 based on Oracle jdk8-b80 >> >> The file 'bashrc' was edited: >> >> GNU nano 2.2.6 File: ./.bashrc >> >> # .bashrc >> >> # User specific aliases and functions >> >> # Source global definitions >> if [ -f /etc/bashrc ]; then >> . /etc/bashrc >> fi >> export PATH=$PATH:/usr/local/bin >> export JAVA_HOME=/usr/local/java/jre/bin/java >> It is correct to add multiple paths to the export PATH command: export PATH=$PATH:/usr/local/bin:/usr/local/java/jre/bin/java -- digest-mode subscriber; please cc to maintain message thread

2 1

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] providing grsecurity in [community]
by Nowaker 19 Apr '14

19 Apr '14

My reply to the arch-dev-public discussion. > I'd say an unofficial repo is the way to go for the time being. > linux-grsec in the AUR only has 44 votes, so it is not screaming out for > inclusion in the repos. Alan, please also include 64 votes for AppArmor and 19 for SELinux. It sums up to 127. As Daniel said, everyone will be happy to drop their AppArmors and SELinuxes to whatever the official repo will provide. Anyway, votes have rarely been a reason for moving packages from AUR into community. It seems we are now facing a situation where the number of votes is a hard requirement for the package to make its way into community. It has never been a case, and I hope it doesn't happen now. Some TU is interested in maintaining linux-grsec, it won't affect anybody else he claims, so I don't see what the big deal is. -- Kind regards, Damian Nowak StratusHost www.AtlasHost.eu

1 0

Re: [arch-general] sound in gnome, none in xfce
by message 18 Apr '14

18 Apr '14

On 2014-04-13 21:53, arch-general-request(a)archlinux.org wrote: > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2014 23:06:29 +0200 > From: Bjoern Franke <bjo(a)nord-west.org> > Subject: Re: [arch-general] sound in gnome, none in xfce > > Am 13.04.2014 22:55, schrieb message: >> Readers, >> >> In gnome, sound is enabled and can be adjusted via the keyboard >> function >> keys (e.g. fn + ^). This doesn't work in xfce. What is the cause in >> this >> different behaviour and any ideas how to solve please? >> > > Next time read the docs: > https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Xfce#Keyboard_Volume_Buttons > After following the instructions, received an error dialogue window: "Failed to launch shortcut "XF86AudioRaiseVolume" Failed to execute child process "amixer" (No such file or directory)" The sound is enabled when starting the 'audio mixer' (alsamixer) graphical tool and adjusting sound using the mouse.

2 1

[arch-general] providing grsecurity in [community]
by henning mueller 18 Apr '14

18 Apr '14

Hey, I'm replying to a thread on arch-dev-public with the same subject, here. I'm maintaining the linux-grsec PKGBUILD in the AUR [0], wrote an utility to set PaX flags [1] and host a repository for binary grsecurity packages [2]. Although I like the idea of further integrating grsecurity into Arch Linux, I have some points to criticize on the planning proposals of Daniel Micay. > It also includes the PaX project to provide a much stronger > implementation of ASLR along with significant memory protections > for userspace. These features do break many packages, and require > setting flags on binaries when exceptions are necessary. I don't > want to place a burden on other packagers, so I plan on leaving > the parts requiring integration with other packages disabled at > first. 1. The very core of the grsecurity project is PaX. Without it, you miss out on the most effective security features. Some contributing linux-grsec users and me collected numerous binaries, which do not work well with PaX and the according PaX features, which have to be disabled in order to get them running. These are currently collected in the linux-pax-flags utility [1]. For a clean grsecurity integration, any flags on [core], [extra] and [community] should be set before releasing linux-grsec in [community]. > It would have no impact on people not using it, since it would > just be a very short string set in the `user.pax.flags` xattr key. > For example, `setfattr -n user.pax.flags -v "mr" > "$pkgdir/usr/bin/foo"` to disable MPROTECT and RANDMMAP features > (on chromium, firefox, etc.). 2. I think, manually setting the flags with a setfattr call in the PKGBUILDs is a bad solution, because it is error-prone. The Gentoo (hardened) folks integrated a new function for marking binaries with PaX flags into the ebuild environment. I would prefer a solution like this for Arch, too. A new PKGBUILD variable for PaX flags to be set after install() would also be a good solution (like PAX_FLAGS=(usr/bin/firefox:mr). (There is also a utility which supports xattr flags by the Gentoo hardened folks named paxctl-ng.) 3. I do not know, what the policy is, here, but I would prefer to maintain the PKGBUILD myself, if it gets included in [community]. At least, I would have expected to be integrated in the discussion a little more. I did the work on it since beginning of 2012 and run it on several machines since then. I think, a message like "I will adopt your package in [community]" is a little rude. The gradm package was already deleted from the AUR. On the linux-pax-flags AUR package, Daniel commented that I would have to change it to work according to his plans. I want to mention another step, that would be necessary for a decent integration of grsecurity and full ASLR: The activation of PIE/PIC. This has been discussed a little on the Arch Linux BBS [3]. Allan stated that "If there is a good way to add it for x86_64, it will be considered." Maybe it is possible to come up with a good way. Best regards, henning [0] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/linux-grsec [1] https://github.com/nning/linux-pax-flags [2] https://arsch.orgizm.net [3] https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=172955

1 0

Re: [arch-general] Android support in Linux Arch
by Hugo Osvaldo Barrera 18 Apr '14

18 Apr '14

Looks like my message was silently dropped by mailman. Lemme retry this: On 2014-04-16 20:49, Hugo Osvaldo Barrera wrote: > First of all, thanks for all the efort you're putting into moving these > arch tools into the official repos. I've been wanting to see this (and > non-bin packages) for ages! :) > > On 2014-04-17 00:50, Karol Babioch wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Am 17.04.2014 00:38, schrieb Anatol Pomozov: > > > Are there people with Android development background? What exactly do > > > you miss in Arch? > > > > The problem I face with the Android situation in Arch is that currently > > there seems to be no "clean" (TM) way to install the SDK and related > > stuff. The android-sdk package from AUR is fine and dandy, but one > > usually also needs to install a whole bunch of API specific packages > > through the "android" tool from the SDK. > > > > - This doesn't work for normal users, e.g. you can update the packages > > using Eclipse, but you need to start "/opt/android-sdk/tools/android" as > > root > > Does this download additional files, or actually replace files the arch package installs? > > If it's the former, then you can create a user group (eg: android), > and make the directory where files are downloaded owned by that group. > > > > > - Installing any sort of package through the "installer" mentioned above > > isn't compatible with the whole idea of package management, because the > > package manager isn't aware of these files. I ran into conflicts before, > > which I had to resolve by temporarily removing some components. > > If we can make arch packages for all the packages available through that > installed, that would make it innecesary, though still usable. Something > similar happens with npm, gem (when used at a system level), pip, etc: > there's a second package manager that can (optionally) be used, but it's > a bad idea if you want to keep using arch's. > > > > > Maybe I'm doing something wrong here, but at least this is what I've > > experienced throughout the last couple of months. Unfortunately I don't > > see a good way how this can be improved, as I like the idea of > > installing only API components that I really need and get instant (!) > > updates for them directly from the upstream project. > > > > If you want the instante updated from upstream, then you'd need to update > the arch package instantly ;) This is exactly what happens with some of > the above mentioned examples (npm). > > > Anyone familiar with the situation on other distributions? How do they > > handle all of this? > > > > I did a bit of research on this. > Ubuntu suggest you download the SDK and install into into your home: > https://help.ubuntu.com/community/AndroidSDK > (so no useful precedent here). > > The same applies for Fedora: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/HOWTO_Setup_Android_Development > > Gentoo uses the upstream binaries in their packages (ebuild?): > https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Android > > They DO seem to set permissions to 775, and ownership to root:android, > so I guess they do something similar to what I suggested above. > > Finally, Debian doesn't seem to package anythis other than the packages > that were mentioned as existing in AUR as source packages, so there's > nothing to be leart there. > > > Best regards, > > Karol Babioch > > > > Hope this helps a bit, > > Cheers, > > -- > Hugo Osvaldo Barrera -- Hugo Osvaldo Barrera A: No, it doesn't make sense. Q: Should I include quotations *after* my reply?

3 3