- Arch-general - lists.archlinux.org

[arch-general] [signoff] kernel26 2.6.30.2-1
by Tobias Powalowski 20 Jul '09

20 Jul '09

Hi guys, just an upstream bump, with the latest security fix, update is recommended for all users. please signoff fast 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] vc/* -> tty* transition - round 2
by Matthew 20 Jul '09

20 Jul '09

Allan McRae wrote: > A couple of fixes have been applied to these packages since the last > signoff message. The list of packages looking for signoffs now are: > > filesystem 2009.07-1 > initscripts 2009.07-3 > syslog-ng 3.0.3-2 > udev 141-5 > > Cheers, > Allan > Would it be possible to have a news item, after the move to core, letting users know of the change and that pacman will be touching their /etc/inittab file? ~pyther

1 0

[arch-general] MythTV
by Manne Merak 20 Jul '09

20 Jul '09

My previous MythTV box, running opensuse 10.2, just died (HDD failure). Replaced the HDD and installed Arch for n minimal MythTV platform; on an old AMD Athlon 1.2G, 512Meg RAM, NVIDIA FX5200. All installed fine, but I get "Bus error" if I try to run any MythTV app. I guess it was compiled with some Intel only feature? Anyone have some suggestions? or should I just grab a copy of Mythbuntu? Manne

2 3

[arch-general] What to do about the "blender" package?
by Sven-Hendrik Haase 20 Jul '09

20 Jul '09

Dear Arch Devs, I'm reposting this mail to arch-general because I was ignored on arch-dev-public. I wonder what should be done about the "blender" package in [extra]. The package hasn't been updated for quite some time (it is correctly marked out-of-date), a few bug reports have been filed for it, it doesn't build anymore and the package maintainer doesn't answer my mails. What can be done in such a case? I wouldn't want to suggest anything that would break the peace and render the happy rainbows gray in Arch Dev land, yet I wonder if it would be suitable in such a case to degrade the package in question to [community] so that a TU may take care of it? This is of course assuming that no other dev wants to take over "blender". -- Sven-Hendrik

5 7

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] [signoff] vc/* -> tty* transition
by Baho Utot 19 Jul '09

19 Jul '09

On Sun, 2009-07-19 at 12:01 +1000, Allan McRae wrote: > First off, I don't like modifying config files. But, given I did this > update and still managed to screw my system up when testing it with a > reboot... > > So it is a question of which I hate more; post install messages or > automatically fixing the file. > > A post install message means that I tell all complaining users that they > should have read their pacman output. But hang on, they are already > told that there is a .pacnew file for what is a very important config > file. So I can say that anyway. So here is my prototype install file... > > post_install() > { > if [ -f "/etc/inittab.pacnew" ]; then > echo "You are being very stupid if you did not take notice of that > warning about a .pacnew file" > fi > } > > A simple sed of the config file means much, much less complaining > users. And given the number of complaints I got about libjpeg7 (wheres > the thanks now gtk and kde are working?), I am very, very tempted just > to do the sed. > > Allan > Not that my option means squat but.... I agree. Since this update/upgrade will break everyone/most peoples systems I think a relaxing of the rule for this one is justified . Rules are meant to be broken, that's why there are rules :) You do want to be a distro without rules don't you?

5 4

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] [signoff] vc/* -> tty* transition
by Loui Chang 19 Jul '09

19 Jul '09

On Sun 19 Jul 2009 12:01 +1000, Allan McRae wrote: > First off, I don't like modifying config files. But, given I did > this update and still managed to screw my system up when testing it > with a reboot... > > So it is a question of which I hate more; post install messages or > automatically fixing the file. > > A post install message means that I tell all complaining users that > they should have read their pacman output. But hang on, they are > already told that there is a .pacnew file for what is a very > important config file. So I can say that anyway. So here is my > prototype install file... > > post_install() > { > if [ -f "/etc/inittab.pacnew" ]; then > echo "You are being very stupid if you did not take notice of that > warning about a .pacnew file" > fi > } > > A simple sed of the config file means much, much less complaining > users. And given the number of complaints I got about libjpeg7 > (wheres the thanks now gtk and kde are working?), I am very, very > tempted just to do the sed. If you expect the users to be stupid they will be stupid, and you will hold their hand, and they will begin to expect you to hold their hand, and then we're in trouble. We will snowball right into Archbuntu. So. Do what's right. Give users a warning, give them time to adjust. If people start complaining, give them the straight line, plug your ears and sing 'Lalalala I warned you.' Don't stress yourself. You're not even being paid after all.

3 3

[arch-general] Problem with sound under vmware server
by Alastair Irving 19 Jul '09

19 Jul '09

Hi I've been running arch as a virtual machine using vmware server for a few months now without problems. However, I upgraded all packages yesterday, and now I know longer have any sound. According to lspci the soundcard is an Ensoniq ES1371, and according to lsmod the snd-ens1371 module is loaded. If I do speaker-test then it seems to work, it plays a static hissing sound, but it repeatedly gives the error Write error: -32, broken pipe If I aplay a wav file, then no sound is played, and I get the error underrun!!! (at least 1829490232.202 ms long) underrun!!! (at least 1829490234.191 ms long) I've tried running alsaconf, and this seems to run successfuly, but sound still doesn't work. Does anyone have any suggestions as to how to fix this? Many thanks Alastair Irving

1 0

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] [signoff] vc/* -> tty* transition
by Baho Utot 19 Jul '09

19 Jul '09

On Sun, 2009-07-19 at 12:20 +1000, Allan McRae wrote: > Daenyth Blank wrote: > > On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 22:01, Allan McRae<allan(a)archlinux.org> wrote: > > > >> post_install() > >> { > >> if [ -f "/etc/inittab.pacnew" ]; then > >> echo "You are being very stupid if you did not take notice of that warning > >> about a .pacnew file" > >> fi > >> } > >> > > > > +1 to this solution from me. > > > > I guess you missed my sarcasm. It is difficult to convey across email. > I see absolutely no point in repeating warnings. If they did not read > the first, why would they read the second? > > Allan > > Because their machine is broke?

1 0

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] [signoff] vc/* -> tty* transition
by Aaron Griffin 19 Jul '09

19 Jul '09

Holy hell this is out of control. Here's the two sides, boiled down: * Use an automatic sed to prevent people from complaining * Post a news item and let people do it manually. As we can tell from this thread, people are going to bitch either way - making the 'no bitching' argument a little moot. Personally, I am against this but I can see it simplifying this process, so I understand why people would want this. My biggest fear is that it goes downhill from here. 'We did it for the tty change' will be used to justify more and more. It's a slippery slope. Sometimes these things happen where you need to be slightly inconvienanced in order to protect yourself from falling into a trap like this. However, I must point out: odds are most people don't touch inittab, so the upgrade will do things as expected and the sed line will only do work a small subset of end users. And to be clear, I definitely do not like the pandering to users thing... if people whining about stupid shit gets on your nerves, stop visiting the forums and IRC. It worked for me! ( google 'eternal september' for kicks :). Pyther, I like your sentiment. On Jul 18, 2009 10:14 PM, "Daenyth Blank" <daenyth+arch(a)gmail.com<daenyth%2Barch(a)gmail.com>> wrote: On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 23:03, Matthew<pyther(a)pyther.net> wrote: > Could someone please enlighten me... Too true. totally agree with all of the above

5 5

[arch-general] firefox 3.5 en-us 3.03 dictionary
by Caleb Cushing 19 Jul '09

19 Jul '09

anyone get this installed? it's supposedly compatible with 3.5 and yet I can't install it. -- Caleb Cushing http://xenoterracide.blogspot.com

1 0