- Arch-general - lists.archlinux.org

[arch-general] How to create archlinux install CD?
by Karolina Lindqvist 05 Apr '08

05 Apr '08

I have a new i586 machine and want to install archlinux i586 on it. So I want to recreate the archlinux install CD. But how do i do it? I have unpacked the install ISO, and is replacing all the packages, but when it comes to inird.img, the instructions in the wiki do not work. I cannot mount the unzipped inird.img. What should I do? file say that it is a cpio archive, but how do I unpack and mount it? And then, what is lowcore.img? Of course I could do it by booting debian, or something, and then replacing it with archlinux, but actually having an archlinux install CD would be pretty handy for my i586 machines.

6 6

[arch-general] initscripts-splash
by Elia Yehuda 04 Apr '08

04 Apr '08

Hey all, as been advised before to use the new functions.d functionality i've wrote a splashy functions file which seems to work pretty well. one problem though - since the /etc/rc.d/functions file only expose the source_functions function and doesn't actually execute it, all the functions.d/* files will be ignored unless the source_functions is specifically being called to. this raise a problem with progressing the progress-bar when starting the daemons in rc.multi - since i was trying to keep the initscripts intact and not change any of the scripts, ive recreated add_daemon in my functions.d/splashy file which does increment the progress bar, but functions.d/splashy will be ignored since all the daemon scripts simply source /etc/rc.d/functions but dont call the source_functions. the only solution i could find was to call source_functions within /etc/rc.d/functions itself which means whenever /etc/rc.d/functions is being sourced, source_functions will be called too. i would like to know the cons for this behavior and whether this shouldn't be the default behavior anyway. also, if someone has a better alternative to make rc.multi/daemons be aware of splashy or the functions.d/* files i'll be glad to hear. Blessings, z4ziggy

1 0

[arch-general] HP C3180 connected using usb no longer works
by Neil Darlow 04 Apr '08

04 Apr '08

Hi, My HP C3180, connected using usb, has recently stopped working. I'm not sure if it's related to recent changes in udev. lsusb -vv gives: Bus 002 Device 007: ID 03f0:5611 Hewlett-Packard PhotoSmart C3180 ls -l /dev/usbdev2.7 gives: crw-rw-rw- 1 root lp 189, 134 2008-04-04 19:40 /dev/usbdev2.7 My groups setting is: sys tty lp wheel network video audio optical storage scanner camera power users neil I am using udev-119-1, foomatic-db-hpijs 20080211-1 and cups-1.3.7-1 on i686. Any suggestions as to where to look for debugging this would be appreciated. I recall having to do this once before. Regards, Neil Darlow

1 0

[arch-general] ArchISO FTP Installer - Round 2
by Simo Leone 04 Apr '08

04 Apr '08

First off, thanks for the feedback last week. Most of the issues were minor and not-too-technical, so they weren't too tricky to iron out. Another batch of images has been generated with suggested improvements, they can be found at: http://dev.archlinux.org/~simo/archiso_tests/installer/ This time, there are ISO and USB images for both architectures. Once again, I'm looking for testers. So if you have some time to kill, please give 'em a spin and let us know how it goes. Generally speaking the live system should be able to: a) boot and b) connect to a network. If for some reason you can't get it to do one of those, I'm especially interested in hearing about it. If no major issues can be identified with these, the next batch will be a full-blown core-ftp-i686-x86_64-usb-iso release. Early and Often, as they say. Thanks for your help! -- Simo Leone Archlinux Developer PS: For the interested, changelogs and code repos: http://code.neotuli.net/gitweb/?p=archiso.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/ftp-i… http://projects.archlinux.org/git/?p=archiso.git;a=summary

1 0

[arch-general] phpPgAdmin package appears broken in latest update
by alec.hussey＠madsoft.org 02 Apr '08

02 Apr '08

Hey everyone, The other day I did a system upgrade and upgrade to the latest phpPgAdmin. However, after the ugrade had finished there was nothing left in /home/httpd/html/phpPgAdmin other than conf/config.inc.php.pacsave. And removing then reinstalling the package does not resolve the problem. Then I figured it may have moved directories and didnt specify that during the upgrade but the only results returned are: /home/httpd/html/phpPgAdmin /home/httpd/html/phpPgAdmin/conf /home/httpd/html/phpPgAdmin/conf/config.inc.php.pacsave Not exactly sure what happened here but it seems as if the package has become broken. Maybe if anyone else has a better idea they could let me know. Thanks! -Alec Hussey

3 2

[arch-general] [English] New Distro - Can't Read German
by pyther 01 Apr '08

01 Apr '08

I need you guys to recommend a new distro. Unfortunately I made a terrible mistake by taking Spanish two years ago (didn't learn much, but still...). This means I do not know German I will be unable to read man pages and what not! I am looking for an ENGLISH distro that is as similar to Arch Linux as possible. Any help would be great! Thank you, Pyther

29 41

[arch-general] Dropping ipw3945 from core
by Thomas Bächler 01 Apr '08

01 Apr '08

After I discovered that my problems with the new Intel driver where related to dhclient and fixed the bug, I am now successfully using iwl3945 on my machine. It seems to be working perfectly, so I am considering dropping ipw3945 from core/support with the 2.6.25 release (so there will be no new package versions after ipw3945-1.2.2-8). This is intended as a warning, but also as a question: Is there anyone who cannot use iwl3945 instead of ipw3945?

11 15

[arch-general] Custom kernel compile fails
by CtM 01 Apr '08

01 Apr '08

Happy April everyone! I was just wondering if anyone else was having issues building a recent custom kernel. I find that it fails on the make command. Here is the output I get: LD .tmp_vmlinux1 kernel/built-in.o: In function `getnstimeofday': (.text+0x205d3): undefined reference to `__umoddi3' kernel/built-in.o: In function `getnstimeofday': (.text+0x205f6): undefined reference to `__udivdi3' kernel/built-in.o: In function `do_gettimeofday': (.text+0x20718): undefined reference to `__udivdi3' kernel/built-in.o: In function `do_gettimeofday': (.text+0x20736): undefined reference to `__umoddi3' kernel/built-in.o: In function `timekeeping_resume': timekeeping.c:(.text+0x209e6): undefined reference to `__umoddi3' timekeeping.c:(.text+0x20a06): undefined reference to `__udivdi3' kernel/built-in.o: In function `update_wall_time': (.text+0x20d5a): undefined reference to `__umoddi3' kernel/built-in.o: In function `update_wall_time': (.text+0x20d7a): undefined reference to `__udivdi3' kernel/built-in.o: In function `update_wall_time': (.text+0x211f6): undefined reference to `__umoddi3' kernel/built-in.o: In function `update_wall_time': (.text+0x21216): undefined reference to `__udivdi3' make: *** [.tmp_vmlinux1] Error 1 I have tried kernel 2.6.24 and 2.6.24.4 on two different machines with two different cpu's (one intel dual core and one AMD 64 bit). I've tried using my previous config (make oldconfig) and also tried without it. I even ran make clean && make mrproper on the new extracted kernel directory before attempting to build it. Usually upgrading a kernel is very routine for me, but this time it isn't working. All kernel sources were downloaded from kernel.org as usual for me. Any ideas would be appreciated. Thanks, CtM

4 3

[arch-general] Goom Byetteng
by Essien Ita Essien 01 Apr '08

01 Apr '08

Zear ArgLeenugs, Zit it vit gret dizplezur datz I havengt now writteng diz mailz een compuleet stopmentten ov useng ov ArgLeenugs az a diztro. I havengt now enjoymenttum my timeung useng ov diz distro atchung!! Peety my englishung notteng de bestest but notteng the baddest but cannotz I usengzt. Dankee! atchung!! farewarez ArgLeenugs Essiengenz

2 1

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