- Arch-general - lists.archlinux.org

[arch-general] svn packaging, abs => git ?
by Dieter Plaetinck 10 Mar '10

10 Mar '10

Couldn't find any discussion about this, but what about we maintain our packages in git instead of svn? pros: 1) git is awesome 2) we don't need abs/rsync anymore. users can just read from git. 3) git network communication is more efficient then rsync (afaik) 4) users can check out older versions of packages easily, with limited storage overhead. 5) makes it easier to maintain forks of packages (have your own git repository with some changes, then merge in upstream changes to keep them up to date. upstream == arch linux here) cons: 1) using git for abs will use more disk space because you need the checkout + the repo (a 60% or increase or so? my abs tree is now 57MB, so even if this becomes 100MB that's still ok imho) 2) svn->git migration is not trivial, since tools, the website, .. will need to be adapted. Dieter

14 24

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] wrong permission to packages
by Chris Brannon 10 Mar '10

10 Mar '10

Dan McGee wrote: > On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 3:16 PM, Ionut Biru wrote: *SNIP* >> ok. so he has umask 077 and because we are using rsync the permission is >> persistent. maybe we should fix dbscripts and install the package with the >> right permission. > > Patches welcome. :) > > -Dan Hi, I'm the offender in this case. The file had permissions of 0600. When I used communitypkg to upload it, rsync preserved those permissions. My next message will have a patch for dbscripts. Hopefully, my proposed fix isn't too naive. -- Chris

1 0

[arch-general] New xorg-server package braks fluxbox?
by Javier Vasquez 09 Mar '10

09 Mar '10

Hi, Today's pacman -Syu installed new xorg-server package: % pacman -Qs xorg-server local/xorg-server 1.7.5.901-1 (xorg) X.Org X servers I have xorg.conf configured without hal support: Section "ServerFlags" Option "AutoAddDevices" "False" Option "AllowEmptyInput" "False" EndSection I also have fluxbox installed: % pacman -Qs fluxbox local/fluxbox 1.1.1-1 A lightweight and highly-configurable window manager And with the new xorg-server the behavior I'm seing is that if I try to maximize/minimize a window, fluxbox freezes, but if I do top, I don't see any process eating resources, neither memory, neither cpu... Another weird behavior, is that fluxbox keys are dead. I configured for example: # alt-left / alt-right Mod1 Right :NextWorkspace Mod1 Left :PrevWorkspace And they don't work. Well, if I try them like between the 1st 2 seconds, they actually work, after 2 seconds, they don't do a thing... I don't think this is a video card issue, since I have the same issue with a nvidia video card, and an ati video card: Driver "nvidia" VendorName "NVIDIA Corporation" BoardName "Quadro FX 570M" ... Driver "radeon" VendorName "ATI Technologies Inc" BoardName "Radeon RV250 [Mobility FireGL 9000]" Is this a bug? I don't want to use hal, but perhaps it's inevitable now as opposed as before, when we could still not depend upon it... So I'm not sure if the only way to make Xorg work now is through hal, or if this is just a temporal bug to be fixed... Please let me know. Thanks, -- Javier.

5 7

[arch-general] encfs boost and openssl
by Manne Merak 09 Mar '10

09 Mar '10

I have problems with the latest update and EncFS. Did check out the bug reports at Arch and EncFS and after downgrading Boost to 1.41 I now do not get the config file reading error anymore. Unfortunately trying to decode my data results in "Error decoding volume key, password incorrect", my password is definitely correct. I downgraded OpenSSL to 0.9.8k-3, still no luck. Does anyone have the correct combination of EncFS, Boost, OpenSSL and whatnotelse to get my data back? Manne

4 7

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] Moving to pkg.tar.xz officially?
by Ng Oon-Ee 09 Mar '10

09 Mar '10

On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 3:16 PM, Pierre Schmitz <pierre(a)archlinux.de> wrote: > Hi all, > > some of us already commit xz compressed packages, others don't. We didn't > really decide on this yet. > > So, is there a reason not to recommond every TU and Dev to change PKGEXT to > .pkg.tar.xz? > > We might also want to write a little announcement to inform users about this > change. While most of them wont be affected, some would have to adjust their > custom scripts. And for those who use netinstall on a 2009.02 or older iso > would have to run pacman -Syu once to get a version of libarchive which is > able to deal with xz. > > If wanted I also could add a check to devtools which issues a warning if xz is > not used. > > Greetings, > > Pierre > > -- > > Pierre Schmitz, https://users.archlinux.de/~pierre > What about devs/tus who also maintain AUR packages? As I recall AUR doesn't accept .tar.xz yet?

6 7

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] i686 pkg built in chroot on x86_64 doesn't work
by Ray Kohler 09 Mar '10

09 Mar '10

On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 12:23 AM, Paul Mattal <paul(a)mattal.com> wrote: > > So this is a weird one, but I think I just made some headway. > > Apparently, this seems to be related to the ACTUAL CPU of the box I build > on. When building on an i686 Arch box running on an AMD 64 CPU, the build > generates the broken binaries! When I build on an Intel CPU, it works fine. > > So it would appear this is at least in part Tomcat's build process's fault > for not building the right thing based on the uname -m but rather looking > directly at the processor. > > Yuck. Perhaps I will at least add a note to the PKGBUILD suggesting this > issue, so that the next poor person who decides to update tomcat doesn't > trip over this same thing. > > Thanks, all, for working this through with me. Why not just stop building tomcat from source? What advantage does it give over just using the upstream binary distro?

1 0

Re: [arch-general] Syncing the mirrors
by keenerd 09 Mar '10

09 Mar '10

> On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 19:13:38 -0600, Dan McGee <dpmcgee(a)gmail.com> wrote > On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 7:09 PM, keenerd <keenerd(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > There does not seem to be a documented "standard rsync" command for > > the mirrors to use, so I'm making all sorts of wild assumptions about > > what a mirror's rsync is doing. > http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Local_Mirror#The_synchronization_script The real mirrors use that too? The whole "local mirror" title kind of threw me. I was looking at http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/DeveloperWiki:NewMirrors . My bad. -Kyle

4 6

[arch-general] attempting to build firefox-qt
by Shridhar Daithankar 09 Mar '10

09 Mar '10

Subject: attempting to build firefox-qt Date: Tuesday 09 March 2010, 15:40:55 From: Shridhar Daithankar <ghodechhap(a)ghodechhap.net> To: arch-dev-public(a)archlinux.org Hello, I am interested in building firefox with Qt. Following directions from https://wiki.mozilla.org/User:Pjohnsen/MozillaQtBuild, I updated the pkgbuild /mozconfig and created the package. Problem is the resulting firefox package does not link against qt at all. Even a running firefox process does not have any Qt dependencies. There are also xul related errors in the makepkg log. The makepkg log is available at http://ghodechhap.net/firefox-qt.makepkg.log. Any help to make it work is greatly appreciated. -- Regards Shridhar

1 0

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] i686 pkg built in chroot on x86_64 doesn't work
by Gerardo Exequiel Pozzi 09 Mar '10

09 Mar '10

On 03/09/2010 02:27 AM, Allan McRae wrote: > On 09/03/10 15:23, Paul Mattal wrote: >> So this is a weird one, but I think I just made some headway. >> >> Apparently, this seems to be related to the ACTUAL CPU of the box I >> build on. When building on an i686 Arch box running on an AMD 64 CPU, >> the build generates the broken binaries! When I build on an Intel CPU, >> it works fine. >> >> So it would appear this is at least in part Tomcat's build process's >> fault for not building the right thing based on the uname -m but rather >> looking directly at the processor. >> >> Yuck. Perhaps I will at least add a note to the PKGBUILD suggesting this >> issue, so that the next poor person who decides to update tomcat doesn't >> trip over this same thing. > > Seriously... WTF! That is up there with some of the strangest build > issues I have ever seen. > > Allan > jsvc uses "arch" command. arch is marked as deprecated tool replaced by uname. Anyway "arch" will return correct values when using linux32 wrapper. (And I am on AMD64). what return "linux32 arch" on your weird chroot? -- Gerardo Exequiel Pozzi ( djgera ) http://www.djgera.com.ar KeyID: 0x1B8C330D Key fingerprint = 0CAA D5D4 CD85 4434 A219 76ED 39AB 221B 1B8C 330D

1 0

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] i686 pkg built in chroot on x86_64 doesn't work
by Gerardo Exequiel Pozzi 09 Mar '10

09 Mar '10

On 03/09/2010 01:32 AM, Paul Mattal wrote: > > > However, adding it doesn't solve the tomcat building problem; same > result. This must be some other issue. > > - P > I tested building from trunk tomcat on x86_64, inside i686 chroot (chroot made with a custom script not from devtools). Builds fine, just before entering, or executing linux32 makepkg. [djgera@exequiel trunk]$ strings pkg/opt/tomcat/bin/jsvc | grep i386 $JAVA_HOME/lib/i386/jvm.cfg $JAVA_HOME/lib/i386/libjvm.so $JAVA_HOME/bin/i386/libjvm.so ... [djgera@exequiel trunk]$ strings pkg/opt/tomcat/bin/jsvc | grep amd64 [djgera@exequiel trunk]$ -- Gerardo Exequiel Pozzi ( djgera ) http://www.djgera.com.ar KeyID: 0x1B8C330D Key fingerprint = 0CAA D5D4 CD85 4434 A219 76ED 39AB 221B 1B8C 330D

1 0