- Arch-general - lists.archlinux.org

Re: [arch-general] An old, tiresome discussion: cdrtools vs cdrkit
by Jim Pryor 02 Feb '10

02 Feb '10

Wow, this thread got very hot very fast. I composed this about an hour ago, when things were much cooler. But the questions still seem worth raising. I understand Joerg's frustration about the burden of proof issue here, and I also understand Allan's and Phrakture's reluctance, in the light of our not having more solid evidence from disinterested parties. Apparently Joerg has seen more such evidence, but is not in a position to provide it. That's unfortunate, but understandable. People are getting alternately enthusiastic, and frustrated, and annoyed with each other, but that seems to be about where this stands. Aren't there two questions here, though? 1. Should we distribute binaries of cdrtools? 2. Should we distribute binaries of cdrkit? Setting 1 aside for the moment, it sounds to me---not based wholly on this thread, but this thread exhausts my recent reading on the issue---like there are possible legal issues with 2, and in fact it sounds to me like the case for that is rather stronger than the case for there being legal issues with 1. That impression survives even if the case against cdrkit does all trace back to claims made by Joerg---which I don't know to be so but which has been alleged here. There are technical reasons for thinking cdrtools is much preferable to cdrkit; however that leaves it open whether cdrkit is or isn't good enough for the needs that prompt us to distribute a binary of either of these packages. As I said I do understand the reasons given for hesitating about cdrtools. But it sounds to me like cdrkit survives equally careful scrutiny less well. So why isn't the decision tree: be most cautious legally, and distribute neither be moderately cautious legally, in which case although it's not obvious cdrtools is in the clear, the case against cdrkit seems stronger, so if one is to be distributed it should be cdrtools trust other distros, and decide we're clear to distribute either, in which case the technical merits again speak for cdrtools. -- Jim Pryor jim(a)jimpryor.net

17 28

[arch-general] Prelink/Preload
by Nick Stepa 02 Feb '10

02 Feb '10

Hello, list! Do this programs makes system faster? Maybe anyone use this program. II can`t find article in archlinux wiki about them, only in gentoo wiki(or handbook) - so i can`t find an answer to "is this good for Archlinux". PS Plz share /etc/prelink.conf

5 7

[arch-general] sysinit fsck problem
by Tom 02 Feb '10

02 Feb '10

Maybe you remember I was going on about faulty initscripts a while back, specifically that I was being forced through a 'forced fsck' even though I pressed control-c. > Maybe fsck doesn't return 32 as it's supposed to. You can verify this > by adding `echo fsck returned ${fsckret}' inside that code block in > /etc/rc.sysinit. Next time you'll encounter this behavior, you'll > know the code returned by fsck. From there, you might be able to > troubleshoot this issue further. Well I tested this, and its actually returning 8, which quoting the man-page means "8 - Operational error" So maybe somebody else can try this, and confirm fsck is not behaving as it should!? Regards Tom

1 0

[arch-general] core/linux-api-headers?
by richard terry 01 Feb '10

01 Feb '10

Hi List, Just went to do a system upgrade and noticed this and unsure what it means or if I should so Yes: :: Replace kernel-headers with core/linux-api-headers? [Y/n] n Any comments? Thanks in anticipation. Richard

15 21

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] exim maintainer wanted
by Xavier Chantry 01 Feb '10

01 Feb '10

On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 10:55 PM, Allan McRae <allan(a)archlinux.org> wrote: > On 01/02/10 13:08, Allan McRae wrote: >> >> exim has no maintainer and I have been assigned a bug for it as the last >> person to rebuild it (db-4.8 rebuild). I do not use it and have no >> intentions of fixing the bug. Does anybody want to be the maintainer? > > Anyone? It now has two bug reports, one of which contains a patch to fix > both issues. However, me fixing this only means I will be assigned the next > bug it has... > > Allan > Just drop it to AUR :)

1 0

Re: [arch-general] Arch Linux and security - it needs some work
by Nicky726 01 Feb '10

01 Feb '10

Hm, would be nice. :-) I ve been digging into SELinux and Arch lately, and yes some more official support would be nice. If there is something being organized, I'd gladly help, at least in this SELinux area. Regards, Ondrej Vadinsky -- Don`t it always seem to go That you don`t know what you`ve got Till it`s gone. (Joni Mitchell)

4 3

[arch-general] Why taking so long?
by Andrea Crotti 01 Feb '10

01 Feb '10

Sometimes (only twice actually) I had to recompile the kernel with ice support from aur. Now compiling the kernel is not a short job, but it looks like it really compiles EVERYTHING! Maybe putting my .config somewhere it will not do it, how do you manage it? Thanks

9 15

[arch-general] Gnome is Working But Missing Apps
by Carlos Williams 01 Feb '10

01 Feb '10

I have Gnome Desktop Environment up and running perfect on my Arch x86_64 system but I elected to not install "gnome-extra" packages because it installs too much junk I don't want and or need. My question is I am missing two applications from Gnome and don't know what they're called and or what to search for. 1st - I can't open any JPEG or PNG images because Gnome does not appear to have the proper application to manage displaying those types of files. Can someone tell me what the name of the package is Gnome uses for default image viewing? I don't want Gimp for editing images, just to plainly view them. 2nd - I need the ability to RDP into a Windows XP workstation and I installed "rdesktop" packages via Pacman but I think that is the back end package and I am looking for the Gnome GUI application which allows me to do so. I don't know the name of that package. Can anyone please point me in the correct direction?

5 4

Re: [arch-general] Arch Linux and security - it needs some
by Nicky726 01 Feb '10

01 Feb '10

> security isnt about SELinux. Well, seems I didn't completely get the original person's point of view then. I thought that it was more end-computer oriented. Then I think SELinux could be part of its security. Ondrej Vadinsky -- Don`t it always seem to go That you don`t know what you`ve got Till it`s gone. (Joni Mitchell)

1 0

[arch-general] Firefox 3.5.7 not support eh !??
by Nilesh Govindarajan 01 Feb '10

01 Feb '10

Something is seriously funny going on here with FF 3.5.7 (Shiretoko). I'm using it from the arch repos, but on visiting Google Help or Orkut, it says Browser not supported ? And the supported browser list says FF 1.5+ Something is wrong with the arch build ? -- Nilesh Govindarajan Site & Server Adminstrator www.itech7.com

7 8