- Arch-general - lists.archlinux.org

[arch-general] [signoff] mkinitcpio-busybox 1.16.1-4
by Thomas Bächler 21 May '10

21 May '10

This release has been rebuilt with -Os optimization with gcc 4.5.1. Preliminary tests show that the bugs that gcc 4.5.0 caused in this package are gone now. Please rebuild your initramfs and reboot your machines. I will leave this in testing for a while to be sure no new bugs emerge from it. Please sign off after testing.

1 1

[arch-general] can you only test certain packages?
by Caleb Cushing 21 May '10

21 May '10

I'm trying to help with the testing of perl 5.12 but I'd rather not test every package out there. Is it possible to block certain packages from being updated from testing? or only allow certain ones? maybe with a regex? obviously I don't wish to ban them globally. if they make it into a non testing repo I'm fine with it. -- Caleb Cushing http://xenoterracide.blogspot.com

6 9

[arch-general] Policy concerning /usr/libexec
by Kaiting Chen 20 May '10

20 May '10

Hi I was wondering why the policy was to not use /usr/libexec and move what should go there to /usr/lib/<pkgname>. While it isn't serious it seems to me that this deviation from the default behavior is unnecessary. One scenario I can think of where this might cause a problem is if a very security conscious administrator wanted to mount /usr/lib as noexec. Kaiting. -- Kiwis and Limes: http://kaitocracy.blogspot.com/

2 2

Re: [arch-general] Burning From Command Line
by Dave Morgan 20 May '10

20 May '10

On 20 May 2010, at 17:26, Carlos Mennens <carloswill(a)gmail.com> wrote: How do I create a bootable install disk from an .ISO image I downloaded from the Arch site? I would like to know how to do this via CLI only rather than using a front end GUI like Gnome Baker, K3B, or Brasero. Does anyone know the command to burn the image to disk via CLI and what packages I must have in order to do so? Wiki? I'm sure there must be something in there.

4 3

[arch-general] Any TU would like to adopt xboard in extra? My updated PKGBUILD attached.
by Auguste Pop 20 May '10

20 May '10

Hi, I am new to archlinux and just tried to install xboard this afternoon and found out that the package is labeled orphan. I updated the PKGBUILD (attached) and made a successful installation. Any TU would like to adopt the package? The difference between the original PKGBUILD and my PKGBUILD is listed below: 6,7c6,7 < pkgver=4.4.1 < pkgrel=2 --- > pkgver=4.4.3 > pkgrel=0 14,15c14,15 < source=(ftp://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/$pkgname/${pkgname}-${pkgver}.tar.gz) < md5sums=('4623a83fdd43f410bfcc8a20e2eb1474') --- > source=(http://ftpmirror.gnu.org/${pkgname}/${pkgname}-${pkgver}.tar.gz) > md5sums=('6b30535c0883205d23d389b12c1295a8') Thank you for your kind attention.

3 3

[arch-general] Why is there no tftp client in inetutils?
by Karol Babioch 20 May '10

20 May '10

Hi, as I need a tftp client in order to reflash my WRT54GL I realised that Arch Linux hasn't got one in the main repositories. Normally "tftp" is part of Inetutils (http://www.gnu.org/software/inetutils/). Looking at the PKGBUILD of "inetutils" confuses me, as it explicitly disables tftp. I know that I can easily rebuild the package, but I'm wondering why it is disabled by default? At least you should provide a seperate tftp package, as there are certainly people who need a tftp client, for instance me ;). -- Best regards, Karol Babioch

3 2

Re: [arch-general] [aur-general] PKGBUILD for django - orphaned and out-of-date
by stefan-husmann＠t-online.de 20 May '10

20 May '10

-----Original Message----- > Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 09:40:56 +0200 > Subject: Re: [aur-general] PKGBUILD for django - orphaned and > out-of-date > From: "stefan-husmann(a)t-online.de" <stefan-husmann(a)t-online.de> > To: "Discussion about the Arch User Repository $AUR$" > <aur-general(a)archlinux.org> > > -----Original Message----- > > Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 08:38:54 +0200 > > Subject: [aur-general] PKGBUILD for django - orphaned and > > out-of-date From: Puneeth Chaganti <punchagan(a)gmail.com style="margin:0px;"> > style="margin:0px;"> To: "Discussion about the Arch User Repository > > (AUR)" > > <aur-general(a)archlinux.org> > > > > > Hello, > > > > The django package [extra/django 1.1.1-4] is out-of-date and > > orphaned. > > Here is a package build for updating it to 1.1.2. > > > > I'm not sure if this should be updated to 1.2 or a new package > > should be created for that. > > > > Thanks, > > ~ punchagan > > > > > > > Hello, > > please file a feature request on bugtracker. This list is for AUR > packages only. > > Regards Stefan > > > Sorry, I am wrong here, filing a feature request is _not_ the way to go. Forwarding to arch-general mailing list.

1 0

[arch-general] BASH no longer does 'for i in $(ls); do ls $i; done'??
by David C. Rankin 19 May '10

19 May '10

Guys, I'm usually quite good at one-liners, but my simple ones no longer work in Arch. Same cli works fine in suse. What have I messed up? To wit: 15:10 nirvana:~/dt/compiz/compizX11> l total 24 drwxr-xr-x 6 david david 4096 May 18 15:04 . drwxr-xr-x 9 david dcr 4096 May 18 15:04 .. drwxr-xr-x 2 david david 4096 May 18 15:03 i586 drwxr-xr-x 2 david david 4096 May 18 15:03 noarch drwxr-xr-x 2 david david 4096 May 18 15:03 src drwxr-xr-x 2 david david 4096 May 18 15:03 x86_64 15:11 nirvana:~/dt/compiz/compizX11> for i in $(ls); do ls ${i}; done ls: cannot access i586: No such file or directory ls: cannot access noarch: No such file or directory ls: cannot access src: No such file or directory ls: cannot access x86_64: No such file or directory 15:11 nirvana:~/dt/compiz/compizX11> for i in $(ls -d ./*); do ls ${i}; done ls: cannot access ./i586: No such file or directory ls: cannot access ./noarch: No such file or directory ls: cannot access ./src: No such file or directory ls: cannot access ./x86_64: No such file or directory Huh? Same thing on a suse box: 15:14 alchemy:~/dt/compiz/compiz_11.0> l total 24 drwxr-xr-x 6 david dcr 4096 2010-05-17 23:56 ./ drwxr-xr-x 9 david dcr 4096 2010-05-18 10:28 ../ drwxr-xr-x 2 david dcr 4096 2010-05-18 10:24 i586/ drwxr-xr-x 2 david dcr 4096 2010-05-17 23:56 noarch/ drwxr-xr-x 2 david dcr 4096 2010-05-18 10:22 src/ drwxr-xr-x 2 david dcr 4096 2010-05-18 10:21 x86_64/ 15:15 alchemy:~/dt/compiz/compiz_11.0> for i in $(ls); do ls -1 ${i}; done compiz-0.8.6-46.1.i586.rpm compiz-bcop-0.8.4-6.1.i586.rpm compizconfig-settings-manager-0.8.4-4.4.i586.rpm compiz-plugins-extra-0.8.6-8.3.i586.rpm compiz-plugins-extra-devel-0.8.6-8.3.i586.rpm <snip> What could keep the simple cli from working on Arch? I know this stuff worked before updates this morning... What should I look at? -- David C. Rankin, J.D.,P.E. Rankin Law Firm, PLLC 510 Ochiltree Street Nacogdoches, Texas 75961 Telephone: (936) 715-9333 Facsimile: (936) 715-9339 www.rankinlawfirm.com

11 14

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] New core package: linux-firmware
by Matthew Monaco 19 May '10

19 May '10

On 05/19/2010 05:39 PM, Thomas Bächler wrote: > As a followup to a discussion on [arch-general] in the Linux 2.6.34 > thread ([1] and others), I think we should do the following: > > - Create a linux-firmware package from the linux-firmware.git tree. > - Make that package conflict and replace all other firmware that it > obsoletes: > replaces=('kernel26-firmware' > 'ar9170-fw' > 'iwlwifi-1000-ucode' > 'iwlwifi-3945-ucode' > 'iwlwifi-4965-ucode' > 'iwlwifi-5000-ucode' > 'iwlwifi-5150-ucode' > 'iwlwifi-6000-ucode' > 'rt2870usb-fw' > 'rt2x00-rt61-fw' > 'rt2x00-rt71w-fw') > All other firmware packages contain only files that are not part of > linux-firmware. > - Remove the firmware from the kernel26 PKGBUILD, only use the > linux-firmware package instead > > I'm putting a package with the according conflicts/replaces to testing. > Please comment, test it thoroughly and give feedback. > > [1] http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-general/2010-May/013329.html > Maybe this is a little premature, or altogether irrelevant, but now that we're reorganizing all of the firmware what can we expect in terms of its inclusion in the initcpio? Is there a direct relationship between modules and firmware so that just what's needed can be loaded automatically? Is it too much to just take it all with a 'firmware' hook?

2 4

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] phoronix: Is Arch faster than Ubuntu?
by Xavier Chantry 19 May '10

19 May '10

On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 7:18 PM, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 12:07 PM, Dan McGee <dpmcgee(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 12:02 PM, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> Came across my reader today >>> http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=ubuntu_arch_faster&num=1 >>> >>> Pretty neat. >> >> Showing boot-up time and other more noticeable waits would be a much >> better comparison; I think the benchmarks are not why people think >> Arch feels faster. > > Right but the reason I think this is interesting is that the data > shows it is "feels faster" not "is faster". > I basically agree with everything that was said and will try to re-conciliate the different opinions : 1. This benchmark is not particularly useful, as we are often used with Phoronix. They are often not well chosen and/or with bad interpretation, so it often annoys people who know better about a specific software/project. 2. Phoronix's benchmarks have the merit to exist and to provide facts, as opposed to many users who claims X is faster than Y, and NEVER provide any facts/numbers/benchmarks, even when specifically asked. I saw it happening many times in Arch community over the time, so now we at least have some data to show them. So I would still thank phoronix for providing benchmarking tools and results, which are definitely useful and needed. IMO the most interesting benchmarks are the ones comparing different versions of the same software, but this would also better be made in collaboration with upstream developers, as these are probably the only people able to really make sense and explain results. In any cases, thanks for the link Aaron :)

1 0