- Arch-general - lists.archlinux.org

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] pkgstats: first results
by RedShift 11 Nov '08

11 Nov '08

Pierre Schmitz wrote: > Hi all, > > I think you all are interested in the result of Allan's crazy idea to get some > stats about package usage. I spent some/alot time this weekend to present you > some stats. > > At first: I played a bit with gettext and some usefull pages are available in > German and English (depends on your browser's config): > > * http://www.archlinux.de/?page=ArchitectureDifferences > * http://www.archlinux.de/?page=MirrorStatus > * http://www.archlinux.de/?page=PackageStatistics (That's the one; be warnded: > atm it loads > 2MB of pure > HTML!) > > For those who want to play with some sql queries, I have uploaded a (reduced) > db-snapshot: http://users.archlinux.de/~pierre/tmp/pkgdb-stripped.sql.gz > > Before announcing this we should discuss the results and talk about what we > learn about them. > > I'll make a start: (topdown) > > * extra and community have similar size > * more than 1200 submissions since friday. Thanks! :-) > * installation size varies from 126 to amazing 2800 > * 1/4 use x86_64 > * Nearly 70% of packages are from extra. Nice. > * Only 7% are installed from community and a similar amount > is in no official repo (Might be a sign that there is something wrong with > priorities in [community]) > * About 2% from extra and 3% from community aren't used by anybody! > The unused kde-l10n pacakges are no problem; I create them automatically > * Nearly 20% of all users (that includes 3/4 i686) use lib32 packages. > * There are lots of rarly used packages in all repos > * kdemod-kdelibs is installed by 14,26 % while kdelibs fomr [extra] is > installed by 34,05 %. Maybe splitting support in makepkg and devtools should > get a higher priority > > ...that should do it for a start. > Just a warning, generalizing based on these numbers (and on any numbers in fact) is very dangerous. Glenn

8 12

[arch-general] Mailing Lists Netiquette
by Charly Ghislain 10 Nov '08

10 Nov '08

Hi, I just thought it might be usefull for some to (re)read this article : Things Worth Knowing About Mailing Lists http://www.ualberta.ca/~pletendr/list-net.html Regards, Charly

1 0

[arch-general] Fwd: [arch-dev-public] pkgstats: first results
by w9ya 10 Nov '08

10 Nov '08

On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 11:21 AM, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin(a)gmail.com>wrote: > On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 12:11 PM, w9ya <w9ya(a)qrparci.net> wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 10:23 AM, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin(a)gmail.com > > > > wrote: > >> > >> On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 10:51 AM, w9ya <w9ya(a)qrparci.net> wrote: > >> > The TU system was a DIRECT outgrowth of the earlier efforts to find a > >> > place > >> > for users with significant output to be hosted BY the archlinux > systems > >> > >> This is about the hundredth time I've seen the "this is how it used to > >> be" argument. It's stupid. I don't care how the TU system used to be. > >> I don't. I care about how the TU system *is*. So let's talk about the > >> present, and not the past please. > >> > >> I don't care about WHY things were instituted. They've grown and > >> changed. If you're not happy with it, then start a new group that fits > >> your ideals better. > > > > Aaron; this issue does not concern merely myself. Nor is the history > merely > > a personal item. I have *ONLY* spoken about the goals as well as the > > structure that was implemented to achieve these goals in my history > > missives. And OF COURSE that SHOULD BE important as it *IS* the reason > > things are constituted as they are. > > > > As I said in an earlier post, if YOU want to change things, you certainly > > can. No one will stop you. You are the nominal leader. > > > > If you do not like my posting about what reasons are the basis for why > > things are as they are, you can certainly speak out in the manner you > have > > immediately above. But short of "kicking me out" that will not matter > much > > to me as it is not the purpose for our discussion. > > > > One small piece of advice; if you decide to ask people that disagree with > > you to consider leaving, please be sure to make a list of such people; > > prepared before you do ask them to consider leaving. Then, and only > then, > > do your "asking" ALL at once. Someone much wiser than myself told me > that > > to ask people to leave a small number at a time leaves you with enemies > > within your mists that will choose to worry about their own issues > INSTEAD > > of your own. As a leader of men and women you should be aware of that. > > > > Otherwise please be less strident, as it will serve you better. > > I never asked anyone to leave. You're putting quite a lot of words in > my mouth. The point is that as the TU system "used to be", there was > no AUR, no community repo, nothing. It was a collection of remote > repos that were collected in a wiki page. Then we got a unified repo > (incoming, and later community), and then everything else was built on > top of it. Well asking me consider other things elsewhere ala this quoted from above; " I don't care about WHY things were instituted. They've grown and changed. If you're not happy with it, then start a new group that fits your ideals better." AFTER saying that my discussion items were "stupid". It sure seems like you saying that this is a stupid discussion and I should go elsewhere if I am not happy. BESIDES I used the wording "if" that was what you meant. I really only saw angry in your post. (AND I have seen people fired just this way.) Nope. Not a wiki page and NOT a collection in diverse locations as a start. I described this elsewhere earlier today. Please go re-read it. But yes, things were built on top of it. However until this point today, no one has successfully mutated the TU/community system into a statistic driven/based system. My history lesson was designed to point this out. I said as much about the promises that were made about how the voting was meant to be used and what it would NOT be used for. For the record, and as you know becuase you participated a bit the last time, this idea of morphing the voting system into a pre-requisite of sorts was chanllenged within the last two years BECAUSE of the history lessons myself AND OTHERS brought out. I am truly sorry if this annoys you enough to call discussing the history of earlier AUR stuff: "it's stupid", but it really does have bearing.right now. > Simply put: you can keep talking about how the system "used to be" as > much as you want, but understand that that was BEFORE the AUR and > BEFORE we had so many people doing these things. As with any body of > people, the higher the population, the harder it is to keep tabs on > things. With 5 TUs, it's easy to say "do what you want", but when we > get the numbers we have today, rules need to be used. > Nope. It was/am taliking about why things are the way they are NOW as well. TUs are allowed discretion BY DESIGN. > Rather than sitting here saying "We never used to have rules! Oh em > gee!", we can do two things: change the existing rules, or start a new > body of people who are ungoverned. Yes, **you** can change the rules. However you should seek to be sure that you are doing so for good reasons, not just 'a reason'. Be sure to take the time to allow for discussion and NOT call such discussion "stupid", as ignoring someone else's imput will generally lead to unintended consequences. If nothing else ignoring history means you cannot make a fully imformed diecision. Wiser minds than my own have taught me at least that. > > > In suggesting another group that is ungoverned in the way you suggest, > I was not saying "leave this one and start your own". I was saying "do > both and compare" > O.k.... well try to not be so strident with things like "It's stupid" when someone tells you about reasons and goals and results. That may be "history" lesson, but it also may just hold something you have not considered because you did not know of it. Best regards; Bob Finch

5 7

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] pkgstats: first results
by Loui Chang 10 Nov '08

10 Nov '08

On Sun, Nov 09, 2008 at 06:51:20PM +0100, Andreas Radke wrote: > the community repo is still a mess. it seems the TUs just put in what > they like not what is requested by the community. there are still > many packages with more than 50 votes waiting in unsupported AUR. Maybe > a monthly pkg move in/out should be installed by the TUs. TUs really shouldn't be adding packages if they don't use them. At the same time they shouldn't be adding packages solely because they use them. That seems to be happening an extraordinary amount. It's somewhat of an abuse of the server's resources.

6 12

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] msmtp info conflict
by Loui Chang 10 Nov '08

10 Nov '08

On Sun, Nov 09, 2008 at 09:33:32PM -0600, Dan McGee wrote: > Isn't the /usr/share/info/dir file supposed to be removed or > something? I get a file conflict on upgrade. That file needs to be dynamically generated on post-install. I ran into that a few days ago. See: http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Talk:Keeping_Docs_and_Info_Files

1 0

[arch-general] [signoff] kernel26 2.6.27.5-1
by Tobias Powalowski 09 Nov '08

09 Nov '08

Hi guys, new kernel adresses the following things: - bump to latest version fixes: http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/11758 http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/11875 please signoff for both arches, greetings tpowa -- Tobias Powalowski Archlinux Developer & Package Maintainer (tpowa) http://www.archlinux.org tpowa(a)archlinux.org

2 1

[arch-general] [signoff] ndiswrapper 1.53-3
by Tobias Powalowski 08 Nov '08

08 Nov '08

Hi fixes: http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/12023 please signoff for both arches, greetings tpowa -- Tobias Powalowski Archlinux Developer & Package Maintainer (tpowa) http://www.archlinux.org tpowa(a)archlinux.org

1 1

[arch-general] how to install several 2.6.27 kernels in parallel?
by Michael Krauss 07 Nov '08

07 Nov '08

Hello Arch users, the new kernel version causes me some trouble. Since version 2.6.27 architecture independent firmware is installed to /lib/firmware. The install path doesn't depend on the actual name of the kernel: http://kernelnewbies.org/Linux_2_6_27#head-a1eaa0eeec567ae80d95dedf354e3663… Hence it isn't possible to install two different kernel packages in parallel anymore, because both packages include the same content of /lib/firmware, so pacman refuses to install the second package. Up to now I "solve" this problem by simply deleting the firmware in my own kernel package. Don't needing the frimware myself makes this an acceptable solution. But for my savekernel skript in the AUR I need a full featured backup kernel. I have examined the interesting part of the kernel config file: CONFIG_PREVENT_FIRMWARE_BUILD=y CONFIG_FW_LOADER=y CONFIG_FIRMWARE_IN_KERNEL=y CONFIG_EXTRA_FIRMWARE="" and looked at the commits to the kernel git: http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commit;h… http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commit;h… There doesn't seem to exist a simple switch to install the firmware relative to the kernel name. The only solution I can see so far is to stick every firmware name into the EXTRA_FIRMWARE variable and to set EXTRA_FIRMWARE_DIR to a directory related to the specific kernel. I tried to be clever and looked into the kernel26-ice package from AUR but it suffers the same problem. Maybe the maintainer never tried to install kernel26-ice and the official kernel26 in parallel. The question is: Are there any options to install the firmware relative to the kernel version in general? Kind regards, Michael Krauss

1 0

[arch-general] pkgstats: contribution was never that easy
by Pierre Schmitz 07 Nov '08

07 Nov '08

Annoying bug you filed not fixed? Waiting on a package to be updated? If only there was some way you could help out and improve everybody's favourite Linux distribution... (in case you are wondering, I mean Arch). Wait! There is! Just install the pkgstats package (pacman -Sy pkgstats), run the /usr/bin/pkgstats script as a user and help the Arch developers prioritize their efforts. Come on, all the cool kids are doing it. You can be like them!

1 1

[arch-general] Arch on VIA EPIA Pico?
by Sergey Manucharian 07 Nov '08

07 Nov '08

Hi folks, Does anybody have an experience installing Arch on VIA EPIA Pico-series boards? Are there known issues? Thanks! Sergey.

1 0