Re: [arch-dev-public] Imagemagick rebuild in [testing]
On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 6:36 PM, Eric Belanger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > might be worth it to to that for future rebuilds. If someone with mysql > access would do a todo list for the above, I'll appreciate. I could > always do some of these rebuilds if some of you are overwhelmed by work. TODO list created: https://dev.archlinux.org/todo/49/
[arch-dev-public] Imagemagick rebuild in [testing]
Hi, I just uploaded an imagemagick package in testing that will require a rebuilt of the apps that links to its libs because the libraries names have changed. From imagemagick ChangeLog: * New Unix/Linux refactoring (should be transparent since changes are reflected in Magick-config and ImageMagick.pc pkg-config files): /usr/local/include => /usr/local/include/ImageMagick libMagick => libMagickCore libWand => libMagickWand Magick-config (deprecated) => MagickCore-config Wand-config (deprecated) => MagickWand-config Add Magick++-config, MagickCore.pc, MagickWand.pc, Magick++.pc The package that needs to be rebuilt are: dvdauthor inkscape koffice labplot libavg libfprint psiconv (already done) pstoedit transcode vips vips-devel xine-lib To get the list above, I've installed all packages that had imagemagick as a (make)depends then ran lddd to see which ones needed to be rebuilt. It might be worth it to to that for future rebuilds. If someone with mysql access would do a todo list for the above, I'll appreciate. I could always do some of these rebuilds if some of you are overwhelmed by work. Eric -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
Re: [arch-dev-public] [signoff] kernel26 2.6.24.4-1, support/atl2 2.0.4-1
On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 6:06 AM, Pierre Schmitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Am Sonntag, 30. März 2008 11:59:51 schrieb Pierre Schmitz: > > > I will test i686 later. > > signoff for i686, too. Another signoff for i686 (I know its already in core), but I also tested atl2 and we are good to go there. -Dan
Re: [arch-dev-public] licenses: GPL permutations
2008/3/30, Paul Mattal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Roman Kyrylych wrote: > > 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. > > > > > Thanks for the info. I've updated the Arch Packaging Standards to > reflect that convention. If anyone disagrees, please chime in. > > http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_Packaging_Standards Thanks for keeping this up to date! -- Roman Kyrylych (Роман Кирилич)
Re: [arch-dev-public] licenses: GPL permutations
On Sun, 2008-03-30 at 10:24 -0400, Paul Mattal wrote: > Roman Kyrylych wrote: > > 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. > > > > Thanks for the info. I've updated the Arch Packaging Standards to > reflect that convention. If anyone disagrees, please chime in. > > http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_Packaging_Standards > > - P > This is also valid for LGPL, as there's a v3 version of that also now.
Re: [arch-dev-public] licenses: GPL permutations
Roman Kyrylych wrote: 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. Thanks for the info. I've updated the Arch Packaging Standards to reflect that convention. If anyone disagrees, please chime in. http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_Packaging_Standards - P
Re: [arch-dev-public] licenses: GPL permutations
2008/3/30, Paul Mattal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > 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. -- Roman Kyrylych (Роман Кирилич)
[arch-dev-public] licenses: GPL permutations
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+? - P
Re: [arch-dev-public] [signoff] kernel26 2.6.24.4-1, support/atl2 2.0.4-1
Am Sonntag, 30. März 2008 11:59:51 schrieb Pierre Schmitz: > I will test i686 later. signoff for i686, too. -- archlinux.de
Re: [arch-dev-public] [signoff] glib2 2.16.1-1
Am Sonntag, 30. März 2008 12:37:10 schrieb Jan de Groot: > Please signoff for both architectures signoff for both -- archlinux.de
Re: [arch-dev-public] [signoff] glib2 2.16.1-1
Jan de Groot schrieb: For GNOME 2.22, I need glib2 updated to 2.16.1, which is in testing for a while now. Please signoff for both architectures so GNOME can get moved too this week. I've used several applications which depend on glib2, no issues noticed. Signed off for x86_64. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [arch-dev-public] [signoff] kernel26 2.6.24.4-1, support/atl2 2.0.4-1
Simo Leone schrieb: On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 11:34:35AM +0200, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Thomas_B=E4chler_ wrote: - removed the aufs splice patch due to incompatibility with unionfs. This breaks aufs, but Simo promised to fix it (ping Simo) done. Thanks. Once I get an i686 signoff, I will move all modules and the kernel to core immediately. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
[arch-dev-public] [signoff] glib2 2.16.1-1
For GNOME 2.22, I need glib2 updated to 2.16.1, which is in testing for a while now. Please signoff for both architectures so GNOME can get moved too this week.
Re: [arch-dev-public] [signoff] kernel26 2.6.24.4-1, support/atl2 2.0.4-1
On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 11:34:35AM +0200, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Thomas_B=E4chler_ wrote: > - removed the aufs splice patch due to incompatibility with unionfs. This > breaks aufs, but Simo promised to fix it (ping Simo) done. pgprQlY0rrKaV.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [arch-dev-public] [signoff] kernel26 2.6.24.4-1, support/atl2 2.0.4-1
Am Sonntag, 30. März 2008 11:34:35 schrieb Thomas Bächler: > Please sign off. kernel26 (x86_64) seems OK. I will test i686 later. -- archlinux.de
[arch-dev-public] [signoff] kernel26 2.6.24.4-1, support/atl2 2.0.4-1
Changes to the latest kernel by tpowa: - All patches have been collapsed into a single patch-2.6.24.4-1. Patch generation is done by abuse of makepkg now and nothing is done inside a SCM, but that will be fixed. Currently, everything is in http://dev.archlinux.org/~thomas/kernel26/linux-2.6-ARCH.tar.bz2. - removed pre-2.6.24.4 patch and updated to 2.6.24.4 - updated unionfs to 2.3.1 (according to simo this fixes some race conditions) - removed the aufs splice patch due to incompatibility with unionfs. This breaks aufs, but Simo promised to fix it (ping Simo) - removed the atl2 patch and moved it to a separate package in core/support due to the many complaints by developers. - Some PKGBUILD stupidity cleanup: Remove /boot/kconfig26, because it is the most unnecessary file in the history of unnecessary files - Removed /etc/mkinitcpio.d/kernel26-fallback.conf, because the default fallback image doesn't need a separate config file anymore Please sign off. We need to move some kernel to core fast, because applications built with gcc 4.3 might be broken with any other kernel. (At the time I am posting this, only x86_64 is uploaded and tested, i686 will be uploaded in a few minutes, but untested). signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
[arch-dev-public] dhclient: fixed two bugs in extra
I uploaded dhclient 3.0.6-2 which fixes two bugs: - fix-broken-resolvconf.patch dhclient-script only generates a new resolv.conf if the DHCP server transmits a domain name. However, the DHCP specifications don't require a DHCP server to do that. This was reported to ISC in 2004 IIRC and they never even looked at it. This patch fixes resolv.conf generation, such that resolv.conf is always generated if the DHCP server transmits at least one DNS server. I actually fixed this half a year ago, and didn't upload it. - fix-mac80211-wireless.patch I was trying to find this bug for over half a year and just now found out it is dhclient's fault (partially). dhclient/dhclient-script brings the interface down and up again on several occasions. This was never a problem in the past, but with a mac80211 driver, this results in an unusable interface until you reassociate (the RUNNING flag in ifconfig is missing). The interface was brought by dhclient-script down on occasions where bringing it down isn't even necessary, but it suffices to simply delete the ipv4 data (which was done anyway). This patch fixes the problem by removing the "down" keyword from all ifconfig lines in dhclient-script, as the script is never required to actually bring the interface down. One of the occasions when dhclient would bring the interface down and up again was a DHCPNAK. As a NAK is very common when you switch between several wireless networks, as you may try to REQUEST a lease which has not expired yet and get a NAK as the network you are on now is different. This essentially broke all mac80211 driver when using wireless roaming with dhclient and long lease times. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
