- Arch-general - lists.archlinux.org

[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

[arch-general] Configuring dovecot 2 with sieve?
by Magnus Therning 26 Aug '10

26 Aug '10

I've run into a slight problem with the configuration of dovecot after the recent upgrade to version 2. I used v1.2 with the sieve plugin[1]. But I can't get it to work with v2.0. I've located the sieve plugin, now shipping with dovecot itself: % tree /usr/lib/dovecot/modules|head -n 15 /usr/lib/dovecot/modules ├── auth │ ├── libauthdb_ldap.a │ └── libauthdb_ldap.so ├── doveadm │ ├── lib10_doveadm_expire_plugin.a │ ├── lib10_doveadm_expire_plugin.so │ ├── lib10_doveadm_quota_plugin.a │ └── lib10_doveadm_quota_plugin.so ├── lda │ ├── lib90_sieve_plugin.a │ ├── lib90_sieve_plugin.la │ └── lib90_sieve_plugin.so ├── lib01_acl_plugin.a ├── lib01_acl_plugin.so And I know how to configure the use of the sieve plugin in /etc/dovecot/conf.d/15-lda.conf: ... protocol lda { # Space separated list of plugins to load (default is global mail_plugins). #mail_plugins = $mail_plugins mail_plugins = $mail_plugins sieve } ... However, this doesn't work! Running /usr/lib/dovecot/deliver results in the following error message in /var/log/mail: Aug 26 13:45:47 bryma dovecot: lda: Fatal: Plugin sieve not found from directory /usr/lib/dovecot/modules It looks like dovecot doesn't look for plugins in sub-directories! So how do I configure dovecot so that it finds it? I've tried the following, none works: mail_plugins = $mail_plugins lda/sieve mail_plugins = $mail_plugins lda:sieve mail_plugins = $mail_plugins lda.sieve Any ideas? /M [1] http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=18554 -- Magnus Therning (OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4) magnus＠therning．org Jabber: magnus＠therning．org http://therning.org/magnus identi.ca|twitter: magthe

2 3

[arch-general] texlive-xxxxxxxxxxxx-doc packages vanished, yes ?
by goodmenzy＠gmail.com 26 Aug '10

26 Aug '10

Hi, all I found the texlive-xxxxx-doc packages vanished, 32/64 bit are all vanished. anyone are kind enough to tell me the reason?

3 2

Re: [arch-general] [aur-general] TU Application / Looking for sponsor
by Laurent Carlier 25 Aug '10

25 Aug '10

Le mercredi 25 août 2010 14:08:13, vous avez écrit : > Le mercredi 25 août 2010 13:30:35, Jakob Gruber a écrit : > > Hi, > > > > I'd like to apply for the TU position, and as I don't have a sponsor yet > > it'd be great if somebody would be kind enough to take me on :) > > > > A little bit about myself: I'm 26 and I live close to Vienna, Austria. > > The past couple of years I've worked as a database developer / > > consultant, then as a C# programmer (with a couple of additional tasks > > like building and maintaining our SVN / Trac server). In my free time, > > I've also been playing around with C++ and Python. > > > > I've been using Arch for around 2 years. I haven't had much linux > > experience before that - if I remember correctly it was around 1-2 months > > of Ubuntu and Gentoo. I regularly lurk on the forums and maintain a few > > packages in AUR ( http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?SeB=m&K=schuay ). > > > > Generally, I'm mostly interested in maintaining games. However I'm more > > than willing to help out where it is needed. Out of my AUR packages, I'd > > consider taking > > > > firehol, > > me-tv > > and stone-soup > > > > to community. > > > > I have a decent pc (3ghz dual core, 6G ram) available to build for both > > i686 and x86_64. > > > > schuay > > Look at your packages, they are pretty well maintained except they should > be updated in regards to last pacman features (return 1 & missing > package() function) > > Searching a bit on the great internet, i've found some of your > contributions. > > I guess you got the ability to be a good TU. > > Let me be your Sponsor. > > Regards, > Laurent Carlier Also,.... Let the discussion period begin! and have fun!

2 2

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] kde 4.5.0
by Marek Otahal 25 Aug '10

25 Aug '10

On Wednesday 18 of August 2010 11:37:55 Ronald van Haren wrote: > On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 11:27 AM, Pierre Schmitz <pierre(a)archlinux.de> wrote: > > On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 11:19:29 +0200, Jan de Groot <jan(a)jgc.homeip.net> > > > > wrote: > >> On Wed, 2010-08-18 at 11:06 +0200, 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 > >> > >> Given the fact that AMD and Intel rule the IGP market, I would say yes. > > > > We would still need an announcement as for those who upgrade from > > previous versions this global configuration wont be effective. We should > > add to the announcement that people could disable composite by editing > > ~/.kde4/share/config/kwinrc (if they are no longer able to login) > > > > -- > > Pierre Schmitz, https://users.archlinux.de/~pierre > > you will be able to login, afaik this bug only shows up when changing > stuff in system settings. disabling and enabling compositing with the > global shortcut should be enough to get it working again. > > Ronald hello, for me, it kills desktop instantly, not only while fiddling with settings. Manually disabling compositing in kwinrc helps, "setting LIBGL_ALWAYS_INDIRECT=1 in ~/.bash_profile" doesn't affect the bug. I'm using kde on i945. Thanks, marek -- Marek Otahal :o)

2 1

[arch-general] Configure / Set a Hostname
by Carlos Mennens 25 Aug '10

25 Aug '10

I have read on Google searches and on all over so many different ways to properly set a FQDN on Arch Linux and am more confused than I was before I started looking this up. I don't ever get prompted during the Arch installer to enter a 'hostname' but rather do so in /etc/rc.conf which appears to make no difference because it's superseded by /etc/hosts. Can someone tell me if I want my Arch machine called "bishop.mydomain.tld", how does one properly and officially achieve this task in Arch? Thanks!

3 2

[arch-general] Abiword and wv
by Myra Nelson 24 Aug '10

24 Aug '10

Greetings, Abiword was upgraded from 2.8.6.1 to 2.8.6.2. [2010-08-20 01:25] upgraded abiword (2.8.6-1 -> 2.8.6-2) [2010-08-20 01:25] upgraded abiword-plugins (2.8.6-1 -> 2.8.6-2) When I attempted to start Abiword with gmrun and it failed. Next I tried in a terminal and received the following error message. [myra@gandalf abiword unable to find libwv-1.2.so.3 My troubleshooting went like this: [myra@gandalf /usr/lib]:locate libwv /usr/lib/libwv-1.2.so.4 /usr/lib/libwv-1.2.so.4.0.3 /usr/lib/libwv.a /usr/lib/libwv.so [myra@gandalf pacman -Q wv Name : wv Version : 1.2.7-1 http://www.archlinux.org/packages/extra/x86_64/wv/ Package Details: wv 1.2.7-1 Architecture: x86_64 Repository: Extra Description: MSWord library can load and parse Word 2000, 97, 95 and 6 file formats Upstream URL: http://sourceforge.net/projects/wvware License: GPL Groups: None Maintainers: Jan de Groot Package Size: 261.3 KB Installed Size: 3.2 MB Last Packager: Jan de Groot Build Date: 2010-06-08 10:02:57 UTC Last Updated: 2010-06-08 Package Contents * usr/lib/libwv-1.2.so.3 **************** * usr/lib/libwv-1.2.so.3.0.4 * usr/lib/libwv.a * usr/lib/libwv.so fix-soname.patch with PKGBUILD diff -ru wv-1.2.7.orig//configure wv-1.2.7//configure --- wv-1.2.7.orig//configure 2009-09-21 12:22:46.000000000 +0200 +++ wv-1.2.7//configure 2010-06-08 12:00:27.948857203 +0200 @@ -2082,8 +2082,8 @@ WV_MAJOR_VERSION=1 WV_MINOR_VERSION=2 WV_MICRO_VERSION=7 -WV_INTERFACE_AGE=3 -WV_BINARY_AGE=3 +WV_INTERFACE_AGE=4 +WV_BINARY_AGE=4 WV_VERSION=$WV_MAJOR_VERSION.$WV_MINOR_VERSION.$WV_MICRO_VERSION I rebuilt Abiword and everything works fine. Now for the question. Why was Abiword still trying to find the previous version of libwv and why does the package listing on the archlinux packages still show libwv-1.2.so.3? I only ask because that's the version the latest Abiword package from the repositories was looking for. Granted I built Abiword 2.8.2-1 from ABS because I was having problems getting it to work properly installing the package with pacman, and wv was installed on [2010-02-14 02:46] installed wv (1.2.7-1) which is prior to the age bump for the .so file and hasn't updated since (I've checked the pacman.log thoroughly). I'm assuming I built wv from abs at the time but can't find the package I built to check it. Makes one wonder how I wound up with libwv-1.2.so.4. AFAICT that doesn't explain the latest build of Abiword from the package repository trying to find libwv.so.3 since the PKGBUILD doesn't use version deps, or am I missing something. Ciao for now Myra -- Life's fun when your sick and psychotic!

2 2

[arch-general] Add keditbookmarks to kdebase
by joker-jar＠yandex.ru 24 Aug '10

24 Aug '10

Hello! Sorry for my english, i'm russian :) Look at that: http://websvn.kde.org/tags/KDE/4.4.5/kdebase/apps/ But there is no keditbookmarks app in kdebase: pkgbase=kdebase pkgname=('kdebase-dolphin' 'kdebase-kappfinder' 'kdebase-kdepasswd' 'kdebase-kdialog' 'kdebase-kfind' 'kdebase-kinfocenter' 'kdebase-konqueror' 'kdebase-konsole' 'kdebase-kwrite' 'kdebase-lib' 'kdebase-plasma') Keditbookmarks now is a part of konqueror (see the file list for kdebase-konqueror => usr/bin/konqueror). But keditbookmarks is required by some apps (krdc, krusader and others) to edit bookmarks. So, without konqueror you can't edit bookmarks in the krusader (nothing appears after clicking "manage bookmarks"). I think that need to split konqueror on two packages: konqueror and keditbookmarks, because install konqueror just for working bookmark editor in krusader isn't good. P.S. I think you understand me :)

2 1

[arch-general] xorg (group) and xorg-fonts-100dpi and xorg-fonts-75dpi
by Andre "Osku" Schmidt 24 Aug '10

24 Aug '10

Hello, i now found out where my "ugly" fonts in firefox comes for some pages. one page had this defined in css font:11px verdana,geneva,lucida,'lucida grande',arial,helvetica,sans-serif; and busybox.net has: font-family:lucida,helvetica,arial; and both make firefox to use bitmap fonts from the packages xorg-fonts-75dpi xorg-fonts-100dpi removing those packages (and having like ttf-dejavu installed) i havent found any webpage that would get any bitmap fonts assigned anymore. so, anyone know how/what decides which fonts firefox gets ? (i have all i can set in firefox settings to dejavu) and on same note, what packages even need xorg-fonts-100dpi and xorg-fonts-75dpi ? cant we replace those with ttf-dejavu in the xorg package ? cheers .andre ps. no, the solution is _not_ to install ms-fonts :P

3 5