- Arch-general - lists.archlinux.org

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] licenses: GPL permutations
by Loui 31 Mar '08

31 Mar '08

On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 17:20:37 +0300 "Roman Kyrylych" <roman.kyrylych(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 2008/3/30, Paul Mattal <paul(a)mattal.com>: > > What is the right way to list all the various contortions you can now > > have of GPL in the license array? There's: > > > > GPL - any version of GPL > > GPL2 - only version 2 > > GPL2+ - version 2 or later > > GPL3 - version 3 only > > GPL3+ - version 3 or later > > > > These are all substantively different (except the last two.. for now) so > > how do we express these? Should we actually create common licenses GPL2+ > > and GPL3+ which reference the other two, and make GPL reference them > > all? Do we need a GPL1 and GPL1+? > > This issue was discussed in past > (I'm lazy to search for exact thread(s), sorry). > The current scheme is: > GPL - GPLv2 "or, at your opinion, any later version" > GPL2 - GPL2 only (e.g. Linux kernel) > GPL3 - GPL3 "or, at your opinion, any later version" > I don't know of a single project with GPLv1 or GPLv3-only license. > I don't like all these "this version or later" boondongles. Why don't we just keep things KISS and let people explicitly state what licenses are permissable. GPL1, GPL2, GPL3. Put one, or more of those in your licenses array and it's crystal clear what you mean.

7 11

[arch-general] problem with courier-imap-4.3.1-1-i686
by Jason R Begley 31 Mar '08

31 Mar '08

I can't get some mail clients to connect to courier-imap-4.3.1-1-i686 after reecnt upgrades... Was working file with courier-imap-4.2.1-2-i686, I have rolled back without problems. Only error I could find in the log was imapd-ssl: couriertls: accept: error:1408A0C1:SSL routines:SSL3_GET_CLIENT_HELLO:no shared cipher Maybe only compiled for ssl3 and my clients need <V3?? Thanks, Jason

2 2

[arch-general] Installation: after first reboot ext3 superblock mount time in future
by Gerhard Brauer 31 Mar '08

31 Mar '08

Hello, i've noticed this meanwhile quiet often after many installations. Currently after a test with 2008.03-0.3, but also with older ISOs: After install and first reboot i got such fsck notice during rc: ,---- | /dev/sda3: Superblock last mount time is in the future. FIXED | /dev/sda3 has gone 49710 days without being checked, check forced. `---- Here¹ you could download a screenshot from such a situation where also a reboot is required after fsck. Cause this is the *first* reboot after installation users will get a bad impression about Arch. First i thought this comes from vmware, but i also get it in virtualbox and i've seen this also during real installations. I have a suspicion: During (c)fdisk and formatting the disks current locale and timezone is set to US values (don't know at the moment the initial settings presented in rc.conf). During configuration i set my locale and timezone always to de_DE.utf8 and Europe/Berlin. And when first reboot is made that from umounting / there is a time difference that could cause such and flag it on ext3 partition? Or with the order in rc scripts? Maybe also that the hwclock is changed during/after installation... Have others also seen such? ¹ http://users.archlinux.de/~gerbra/screen.png -- Don't drink and root!

8 20

[arch-general] Something screwy with colour terminal output at shutdown
by Neil Darlow 31 Mar '08

31 Mar '08

Hi, Since the last initscripts update (I think) my colour terminal output at shutdown is messed-up. Use of colour at startup is correct but at shutdown the following is shown: 1) The preceeding :: appear dim-yellow 2) Daemon names don't appear 3) Daemon shutdown noise (e.g. postgresql's server stopped output) appears dim-grey It's not a big problem, I could just set USECOLOR="no" but if anyone knows a quick fix to make it work again, I would prefer that. Regards, Neil Darlow

2 2

[arch-general] html messages on this list.
by Arvid Ephraim Picciani 30 Mar '08

30 Mar '08

please stop sending broken html from dialup machines. I can't believe arch-general is the only list where people do that. Even the default sa from the arch packges filters those with up to 8 points. Seriously,... archers should be able to read RFCs and setup their MUA correctly. -- best regards/Mit freundlichen Grüßen Arvid Ephraim Picciani

3 2

[arch-general] Current FTP/HTTP install broken
by Gerhard Brauer 29 Mar '08

29 Mar '08

Hello, at the moment it seems that doing installation by ftp/http source is broken for the current ISOs 2007.08-2. We got several posts on archlinux.de and i see also on archlinux.org: http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?pid=345662 Also some new comments in old bugreport: http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/8898 Problems seems some missing filelists in some packages (ex. glibc) and that there are 3 /mnt/.CHANGELOG files conflicting in glibc, initscripts and perl. These stops the installation of all/most base packages and so if user go further in install/configuration all config files are empty. Will these be fixed before the new ISO go official? Bye Gerhard -- DSSP - Deutschland sucht den Super Papst Casting mit Fliege

6 11

[arch-general] Warning on php-apc update
by Pierre Schmitz 26 Mar '08

26 Mar '08

Dear PHP user, the update from php-apc to Version 3.0.17 includes a security fix: http://nvd.nist.gov/nvd.cfm?cvename=CVE-2008-1488 But it seems that the other changes of that new version are introducing several problems which will cause php to crash. It seems to be quite random but I have seen phpMyAdmin triggering those crashes a lot. I would recommend to disable APC until this is fixed. My current plan is to downgrade APC to 3.0.16 again and try to backport the security patch only. Greetings, Pierre PS: this bug-report seems to be related: http://pecl.php.net/bugs/bug.php?id=13505 -- archlinux.de

1 1

[arch-general] firefox & gcc 4.3
by Grigorios Bouzakis 26 Mar '08

26 Mar '08

Hi, i have been trying to build firefox3b4 or firefox 2.0.0.12 for the past day without success. I guess it has something to do with the latest gcc upgrade to 4.3. Has anyone managed to build it, from AUR or not, within the last couple of days? ps. i am using the testing repo Greg

6 12

[arch-general] Is foomatic-db-engine being attended-to re. Perl-5.10.0?
by Neil Darlow 26 Mar '08

26 Mar '08

Hi, I noticed that package foomatic-db-engine installs some files into /usr/lib/perl5/current. According to the Perl Policy, on the Arch wiki, this is indicative of a non-policy-confirming package and should be dealt with. Is this happening, or has it slipped through the cracks? Regards, Neil Darlow

3 2

Re: [arch-general] signoff kernel26-2.6.24.3-6
by Guilherme M. Nogueira 26 Mar '08

26 Mar '08

That's my first message to the mailing list, I've just been reading it since I started using archlinux as my distro in September 2007. I just want to say that what made me move to arch was The Arch Way. I just fell in love with it the first time I read it in the wiki. Then came pacman. It's amazing to configure your system yourself, editing configure files and keeping track of every modification. Pacman output is great: if you read it. And I think everyone that WANTS to use arch should, and should accept The Arch Way as it is. I love it and I wouldn't like to see it go down in misery. Long live Arch's Way. Not for lazy ones. Thank you all, Guilherme ------------------------------ > > Message: 9 > Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 15:07:17 -0500 (EST) > From: <w9ya(a)qrparci.net> > Subject: Re: [arch-general] signoff kernel26-2.6.24.3-6 > To: <arch-general(a)archlinux.org> > Message-ID: <60645.192.168.1.110.1206475637.squirrel@gateway> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 > > ONE comment inserted below; > > > > On Montag, 24. M?rz 2008 22:47 RedShift wrote: > > > > At first see this all only as the opionion of a normal user and i find > > it good that you challenge such things because this is even a good way > > to improve it. > > > > If this discussion is only for devs than please apologize this and copy > > the lines below to /dev/null.-) > > > >> Lots of software is patched nowadays, even for very stupid things most > >> of the old user base wouldn't have cared about. And when PKGBUILDs > >> starts to grow to the point they need scrolling and comments to be > >> clarified, that's just going the wrong way. (Hint, kernel26 PKGBUILD). > > > > I do not like patches too. And yes, i love it that archlinux is using in > > the most cases the sources as they comes from the upstream. But sorry to > > say, the kernel is a special case. > > > > If you find time take a look for the kernel source packages of another > > distributions and you will see that everyone is patching the kernel. > > Okay, what ist the reason for it? The kernel devs said in the past > > (sorry, i have no url) that getting the kernel stable is the job of the > > distributions teams. This is not fantastic and i don't like this > > situation too but this is the situation. > > > > That is why i find that tpowa is doing a great job and the kernel26 > > PKGBUILD is a good example because all patches been commented so if you > > don't like it you can create very easy your own kernel package. And more > > than the half of the PKGBUILD is copying files and the reaons for it is > > that other packages need this include files. > > > >> Notice the large influx of new users. The fact alone that a topic has > >> been started for a stable package repository *and people are willing > >> to contribute to this*, shows the kind of users we're getting: the > >> wrong ones. There has been an ongoing discussion on the bug tracker > >> whether or not post uninstall scripts should stop daemons upon > >> removal. These ideas come from users that are either inexperienced, or > >> trying to mold Arch in something its not. And what about dependencies > >> in initscripts... wtf? Any sane user can find them out for themselves > >> and put them in the right order in rc.conf. What if someone doesn't > >> want this behaviour? For example I don't want dbus and hal started, > >> but what if the kdm rc.d script will do this for me? It ends up with a > >> pretty big mess. Let alone the complexity that is added to the > >> initscripts. > > > > Smile, because i find that a kdm rc.d script is from my view unnecessary > > because you can handle it easy in the inittab file and this is the first > > time that i see that there is a kdm script.-) But i can understand that > > people who switch from another distribution will miss in the first > > moment some of this automatic things. Give them time and this "problem" > > will gone away but perhaps i see this too easy. > > Coddling the user by just such an addition achieves nothing of either > transient or of a lasting nature for a distro such as ours. > > i.e. *IF* this was the right way to go, then the other distros that are > starting kdm via such a script wouldn't have people leaving their fold and > switching to ArchLinux. > > Specifically, kdm, xdm, et al were ORIGINALLY started as part of the init > processing string and/or X startup and specifically not part of a rc.d > setup. The rc.d style of doing this for the various popular desktop > managers was a later invention that came from the beginner's based > distros. > > > As for the rest of this discussion, as a LONG TIME user of ArchLinux I am > finding it a good discussion to have at this point in time. Please keep > the comments coming. I am greatly encouraged by you all having this > discussion. > > Very best regards; > > Bob Finch > > ------------------------------ >

1 0