Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] Inappropriate bugtracker behavior
Excerpts from Emmanuel Benisty's message of 2010-11-16 12:19:16 +0100: > yeah, wrong list... > > On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 6:15 PM, Emmanuel Benisty wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 2:10 PM, RedShift wrote: > >> Someone (which shall remain nameless unless privately asked) on the > >> bugtracker has been demonstrating inappropriate behavior. This includes, > >> but > >> not limited to: > >> > >> * Insulting developers for not accepting certain bugs > >> * Insulting anyone who disagrees with him, sometimes subtle but definitely > >> there > > > > ban him, who cares? a random guy on the internets yelling at people > > doing stuff for free? seriously? trash his account, let him use > > another distro. > > reading the title I had hoped that the bugtracker called someone a dimwit or something.. too bad :/
Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] mailx package
On Friday 19 of November 2010 21:44:13 Allan McRae wrote: > Hi, > > I was looking at the mailx package and was wondering what we should do > with it. > > We grab the package source for "mailx-8.1.1-fixed" on > ftp.archlinux.org... but I have no idea what is "fixed" about it and we > still patch the Makefile and for gcc-4. It also does not use our > CFLAGS/LDFLAGS when building. > > There are options here: > > 1) grab "updated" cvs snapshot from OpenBSD, which is apparently where > Debian gets it from. I'm not sure where exactly the cvs repo is though... > > 2) use heirloom-mailx (a.k.a. nail). At least I can find a tarball from > that, even if it has not seen a release in a couple of years. This was > requested in the bug tracker but was closed dues to no-one being > motivated to change it after several years. > > 3) use GNU mailutils. It looks actively developed (had a release in > September), and is apparently fully compatible. However, it also has > more features and so is not as lightweight... probably going from 100KB > to 1MB. > Personally I'd like the actively developed mailutils the best. Btw, thank you Allan for doing the [core] rebuild, i've read the thread and feels good to me that someone rebuilds the old packages with new tools. Mark > Opinions? > > Allan -- Marek Otahal :o)
Re: [arch-general] MIT Kerberos?
I would be also for inclusion of MIT krb5. And about samba, at least from my experiences from RHEL6 (where we use krb1.8.3), there is client part of samba4 and server samba3.something Zbyshek On 19.11.2010 13:56, Allan McRae wrote: > On 19/11/10 22:29, Kaiting Chen wrote: >> Does anyone know if MIT kerberos is a drop-in replacement for >> Heimdal? It >> seems more actively developed and more featureful than Heimdal these >> days. >> I'm pretty sure cryptographic export as munitions is no longer an >> issue for >> the US. Perhaps it would even make sense to try to transition to MIT? > > > Does the current samba (3.x) even build with MIT kerberos? I am > fairly definite that samba4 does not... > > Allan
Re: [arch-general] MIT Kerberos?
> > Does the current samba (3.x) even build with MIT kerberos? I am fairly > definite that samba4 does not... > I believe Samba 3 does but Samba 4 does not. Apparently Samba 4 includes OpenLDAP and Heimdal internally. Which is kind of stupid when you consider that people are running FedoraDS, ApacheDS, NDS, MIT Keberos, Shishi, etc. these days. --Kaiting. -- Kiwis and Limes: http://kaitocracy.blogspot.com/
Re: [arch-general] MIT Kerberos?
On 19/11/10 22:29, Kaiting Chen wrote: Does anyone know if MIT kerberos is a drop-in replacement for Heimdal? It seems more actively developed and more featureful than Heimdal these days. I'm pretty sure cryptographic export as munitions is no longer an issue for the US. Perhaps it would even make sense to try to transition to MIT? Does the current samba (3.x) even build with MIT kerberos? I am fairly definite that samba4 does not... Allan
[arch-general] MIT Kerberos?
Does anyone know if MIT kerberos is a drop-in replacement for Heimdal? It seems more actively developed and more featureful than Heimdal these days. I'm pretty sure cryptographic export as munitions is no longer an issue for the US. Perhaps it would even make sense to try to transition to MIT? --Kaiting. -- Kiwis and Limes: http://kaitocracy.blogspot.com/
Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] [extra] repository cleanup
- Original message - > But heiko makes a point. If an unsupported package still worked, without > compiling or something like that, why would you drop it? The idea with a > new "unsupported" repo is not bad. You have got the binaries, but you > are also saying: "this program will probably not work. We take no > responsibility" You are talking about something that already has been done. Anyway, is exactly that: we take no more responsability about those packages. -- Andrea Scarpino Sent from Nokia N900
Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] [extra] repository cleanup
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 12:27, Harlequin wrote: > The idea with a new "unsupported" repo is not bad. > You have got the binaries, but you are also saying: "this program will > probably not work. We take no responsibility" Then step up and do something. Make this repository. It would make no difference to have a 3rd party repo with unsupported packages is in it than another "official" repo without any official support, except it would seem totally unprofessional. -- János
Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] [extra] repository cleanup
But heiko makes a point. If an unsupported package still worked, without compiling or something like that, why would you drop it? The idea with a new "unsupported" repo is not bad. You have got the binaries, but you are also saying: "this program will probably not work. We take no responsibility" "Ng Oon-Ee" schrieb: >On Wed, 2010-11-17 at 16:47 +0100, Andrea Scarpino wrote: >> On Wednesday 17 November 2010 16:37:41 甘露(Gan Lu) wrote: >> > If some says "this is shame", "I'm leaving", >> > "you suck", "developers are selfish", you could certainly discard >> > them, but not I or Heiko, we just talk about our opinion. >> > Does a great community contain only TU/devs? Does Arch is driven by >> > them alone? If you think so what a upstream developer will think >you >> > are? >> A tester. >> >I lol-ed. > >And Gan Lu, I'm not sure which thread you've been following, but Heiko >specifically references something along the lines of "I may as well go >back to Gentoo". > >In the end this just sounds like "I'm going to whine because MY >packages >got deprecated". Repeatedly I see unfounded statements like 'popular >and >important packages'. Something like firefox or gcc is popular and >important. The rest is niche. If the devs want to maintain them, fine, >there's rules for that. If not, just go and compile it. It moves the >burden of work to the person who cares about the package (which is >obviously not the dev). -- This message has been sent from my android phone with k-9 mail
