- Arch-general - lists.archlinux.org

[arch-general] WARNING: mkinitcpio 0.5.99.3 (kill-klibc) live in testing!
by Thomas Bächler 10 Feb '10

10 Feb '10

Okay, this is it. The busybox-based mkinitcpio is entering testing now. BACK UP YOUR OLD (WORKING) INITRAMFS (kernel26.img) FILE! Also, do NOT use this if you have root on NFS, it is NOT IMPLEMENTED yet. Known issues: If you use 2.6.33 and enable the support for ext2/ext3 in the ext4 driver, root on ext2/3 won't work with the autodetect hook, I'll fix that for the next version. Number of systems that failed to boot after the upgrade: 0 (so far) Hooks adjusted: All base hooks + keymap, encrypt, lvm2, mdadm, dmraid, raid (now a symlink to mdadm), v86d. (Also, I hear that the uresume hook works without modification). I am still looking for someone to implement NFS root with this, please contact me if you are interested. This will not be the final version, there is still some work to do, but for now this requires more testing.

5 7

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] package signoffs
by Xavier Chantry 10 Feb '10

10 Feb '10

On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 7:59 PM, Eric Bélanger <snowmaniscool(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > One reason that it takes time to get signoffs for certain packages is > that we don't know if enough devs use it to get the required signoff. > For instance, I don't use openvpn. How many devs use openvpn? I don't > know and probably no-one does. A while ago, I started this: > http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/DeveloperWiki:CoreSignoffs#List_of_pote… > to fix that issue but basically no-one bothered to fill it up. If we > would know how many dev use these low usage packages, then we could > automatically send the signoff thread to both the dev ML and to the > arch-general ML and specifically ask for users signoff instead of > waiting for dev signoffs that will never come. > That's what I was thinking about, how to get more people involved for signoff. You could either ask more often for user signoff on arch-general, or maybe give the status of testers to some active arch members who use testing (if any users are interested at all..)

4 3

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] New Developer: Dan Griffiths
by Gerardo Exequiel Pozzi 10 Feb '10

10 Feb '10

On 02/09/2010 03:23 PM, Aaron Griffin wrote: > I just want to shoot a welcome message to the newest member of the > team: Dan Griffiths (Ghost1227). > > Welcome aboard! > > Very great news! Congratulations :) -- Gerardo Exequiel Pozzi ( djgera ) http://www.djgera.com.ar KeyID: 0x1B8C330D Key fingerprint = 0CAA D5D4 CD85 4434 A219 76ED 39AB 221B 1B8C 330D

7 9

[arch-general] policykit vs polkit
by Lukáš Jirkovský 10 Feb '10

10 Feb '10

Hi, I just found out that policykit on my package is no longer needed. Because it looked strange to me a took a look at other packages and found polkit package. What is the difference between these two (policykit and polkit)? Both seems to provide the same package. regards, Lukas

5 6

[arch-general] Syncing the mirrors
by Benedikt Müller 09 Feb '10

09 Feb '10

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 We have a bit update today, and we see: The syncing process is not really good. So I suggest to change the procedure mirrorsyncs are done: We should have primary and secondary mirrors. When al.org is updated, the sync process of the primary mirrors should be started via ssh(or something similar). Then the primary mirrors start the sync process on the secondary mirrors via ssh. So the al.org server isn't overloaded and the mirrors are more up to date because of the push way. - -- Gruß, Benedikt -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAktlkM4ACgkQEbgIp8utRvBwAwCgiv9qBi/hEP5Xr447gHrauExn f5kAnAs7uzHXPIhz+Q+JnQAkwfJms2/T =6iqt -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

21 46

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] [signoff] openvpn 2.1.1-1
by Damjan Georgievski 09 Feb '10

09 Feb '10

>> Upstream update. >> > > Bump! Does not export the $route_net_gateway environment variable to my --up script. This is probably upstream bug, but still -- damjan

2 3

[arch-general] [signoff] kernel 2.6.32.8-1
by Tobias Powalowski 09 Feb '10

09 Feb '10

Hi guys, bump to latest bugfix version. Please signoff both arches, greetings tpowa -- Tobias Powalowski Archlinux Developer & Package Maintainer (tpowa) http://www.archlinux.org tpowa(a)archlinux.org

1 0

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] [signoff] rfkill 0.4-1
by Damjan Georgievski 09 Feb '10

09 Feb '10

>> Upstream update, please sign off. >> > Bump! seems to work fine on i686 tested with wifi and bluetooth (but it really needs a toggle operation) -- damjan

1 0

[arch-general] KMS again with 2.6.33?
by Sven-Hendrik Haase 09 Feb '10

09 Feb '10

I was wondering whether KMS would officially return with 2.6.33 since a lot of fixes have gone into it? Obviously there will be a lengthy testing series first. Is it currently planned to try KMS again with 2.6.33? -- Sven-Hendrik

4 8

[arch-general] Eben Moglen's view on mkisofs GPL (non-)compliance
by Xavier Chantry 09 Feb '10

09 Feb '10

I also hope this helps somehow. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Karl Berry via RT <licensing(a)fsf.org> Date: Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 1:42 AM Subject: [gnu.org #544172] Fwd: [arch-general] An old, tiresome discussion: cdrtools vs cdrkit To: chantry.xavier(a)gmail.com Hello Xavier, Eben just sent me this summary of his discussion with Jörg Schilling on the subject of the cdrtools mkisofs. He said that it can be republished/posted anywhere. When/if you do that, please do so *in its entirety*. All too easy for things to be taken out of context, so let's at least get the full version out there. Hope this helps somehow. Thanks, karl(a)gnu.org Date: Sat, 6 Feb 2010 11:24:23 -0500 From: Eben Moglen In September 2008, I was asked by Mark Shuttleworth if I could help Canonical discuss with Jörg the measures necessary to include cdrtools in Ubuntu. I spoke to Jörg by phone at first to explain my role, and then by email. I reminded him in doing so that I had agreed with him about the acceptability of combining GPL'd code with a C-library under CDDL in order to make the Debian/GNU/OpenSolaris stack called Nexenta. (I believe this part of our conversation is the source of Jörg's mistaken statement that I somehow indicated that cdrtools is non-infringing, although the issue of the "system library exception" in GPLv2 is completely distinct from the problem presented by the CDDL-licensed libraries libscg and libschilly combined with GPL'd mkisofs in cdrtools.) After speaking to Jörg we began our review of the complete source of cdrtools, and soon verified that GPL compliance on mkisofs was broken. We told Jörg that as far as we could see he was the only copyright holder on the CDDL'd libraries, which he confirmed. In that case, I pointed out, he could give all the permission necessary to solve the problem, without any license changes: he simply needed to give permission as the relevant copyright holder on the CDDL's libraries for combination with mkisofs and distribution of the binary and source under the terms of GPL, without any additional restrictions. We drafted for him the thirty-nine words needed: "You are permitted to link or otherwise combine this library with the program mkisofs, which is licensed under the GNU General Public License (GPL). If You do, you may distribute the combined work under the terms of the GPL." Jörg disputed our analysis. He argued to us: (1) that the binary mkisofs is not derivative of the CDDL-licensed libraries because it merely links to them; and alternatively that (2) CDDL Section 3.6 ("Larger Works") permits the combination. He claimed to have German legal advice confirming him on point (1), but without regard to his German legal analysis, which differs from that of our German lawyers, the argument is incorrect as a matter of law, at least in the United States, and GPL'd mkisofs (whose copyright is at stake) is a US work to which US copyright law applies under the Berne Convention. As to his point (2), while CDDL Section 3.6 permits combination with code under other licenses, it nonetheless requires that "the requirements of this License are fulfilled for the [combined program]." Since it is impossible to observe certain requirements of the CDDL while simultaneously respecting the GPL's prohibition of additional restrictions (GPLv2 Section 6), the CDDL Section 3.6 permission is insufficient to allow the combination. Hence the permission we advised him to grant. Though Jörg continued to argue that he didn't *need* to grant the permission, he never explained why, in the face of opposing legal analysis on behalf of the copyright holders of mkisofs he didn't *want* to grant a harmless permission that would allow his work to be included in Canonical's Ubuntu distributions. After weeks of discussion and many hours of my time and the time of my associate Aaron Williamson, Mark Shuttleworth decided there was no point in further fruitless negotiation and I agreed. SFLC was not paid for its work by any party.

3 2