Re: [arch-dev-public] Courier-MTA packages
Am Montag, 28. April 2008 20:51:43 schrieb Tobias Kieslich: > Sounds good to me. I would have to ask for a candidate though whou would > be interested. I can aks on arch-general aund the aur mailing list. If you are not on a hurry I could have a look at it next week. (I have no time atm). -- archlinux.de
Re: [arch-dev-public] Apologies for being largely absent
On Apr 28, 2008 10:09 PM PDT, Aaron Griffin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I just wanted to apologize to you all for doing so little recently. > There are lots of things I keep promising, but I'm in the process of > trying to find a new apartment and am painting/cleaning this one, so > I'm worrying about lots of other things. ...yes, that shade of blue has GOT to go, and by the looks of those roller marks I'd say you don't paint very often *pfftt* Seriously though, if you have to apologize for being semi-absent for a week or so, then I might as well resign here and now because I feel like I've done f#ck all since coming on board.
[arch-dev-public] Apologies for being largely absent
I just wanted to apologize to you all for doing so little recently. There are lots of things I keep promising, but I'm in the process of trying to find a new apartment and am painting/cleaning this one, so I'm worrying about lots of other things. I still plan to get out some new-fangled dbscripts sometime this week, as it's a blocker for Eliott's new web changes. So again, I'm moving slowly for a reason... it'll all be better soon 8)
[arch-dev-public] [signoff] texinfo 4.12-2
in testing for both arches. Changes: Added to base-devel group Please signoff. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
Re: [arch-dev-public] [signoff] autoconf 2.62-1
On Tue, 29 Apr 2008, Andreas Radke wrote: Am Fri, 25 Apr 2008 00:22:31 +0200 schrieb Andreas Radke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Am Fri, 25 Apr 2008 00:08:49 +0200 schrieb Andreas Radke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: running into serious compile problems when updating coreutils i've found a list with packages that will get broken by autoconf: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=217647 think we should hold back autoconf a bit more until the upstream devs have sorted out most of these issues. -Andy for coreutils calling "autoreconf" did the trick ;) though it breaks some builds i call for the missing x86_64 signoff. issues can be solved quiet easy reconfiguring autotools scripts. -Andy Ok, looks good. Signing off x86_64 Eric -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
Re: [arch-dev-public] [signoff] tar 1.20-2
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008, Dan McGee wrote: On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 5:18 PM, Andreas Radke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Am Sat, 26 Apr 2008 21:13:46 -0400 (EDT) schrieb Eric Belanger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > man page is installed in /usr/man fixed in 1.20-2 also fixed license. please signoff now again. Looks fine here. Signoff i686. -Dan signing off for x86_64. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
Re: [arch-dev-public] [signoff] autoconf 2.62-1
Am Fri, 25 Apr 2008 00:22:31 +0200 schrieb Andreas Radke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Am Fri, 25 Apr 2008 00:08:49 +0200 > schrieb Andreas Radke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > running into serious compile problems when updating coreutils i've > > found a list with packages that will get broken by autoconf: > > > > https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=217647 > > > > think we should hold back autoconf a bit more until the upstream > > devs have sorted out most of these issues. > > > > -Andy > > > > > for coreutils calling "autoreconf" did the trick ;) > though it breaks some builds i call for the missing x86_64 signoff. issues can be solved quiet easy reconfiguring autotools scripts. -Andy
Re: [arch-dev-public] [signoff] tar 1.20-2
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 5:18 PM, Andreas Radke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Am Sat, 26 Apr 2008 21:13:46 -0400 (EDT) > schrieb Eric Belanger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > man page is installed in /usr/man > > > fixed in 1.20-2 > also fixed license. please signoff now again. Looks fine here. Signoff i686. -Dan
Re: [arch-dev-public] [signoff] tar 1.20-2
Am Sat, 26 Apr 2008 21:13:46 -0400 (EDT) schrieb Eric Belanger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > man page is installed in /usr/man fixed in 1.20-2 also fixed license. please signoff now again. -Andy
Re: [arch-dev-public] Courier-MTA packages
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008, Aaron Griffin wrote: > On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 8:47 PM, Tobias Kieslich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Anyone who wants to take that package? I also will put all my knowledge > > into the wiki where my old little setup is explained. I'll need to > > update it though. I will also answer any questions another potential > > maintainer has. If nobody wants to take it, I say let's keep > > courier-authlib, maildrop and imap and let courier-mta go to community. > > I'm also open to other solutions. > > If someone is not able to do this, I'm going to make a suggestion: > Why don't we pull in a community member who actually uses this to maintain it. > > I am not suggesting another developer. I am suggesting a package > maintainer to maintain just this package (for now). > > This is easily achievable using svnserve to lock down permissions. > > Opinions? > Sounds good to me. I would have to ask for a candidate though whou would be interested. I can aks on arch-general aund the aur mailing list. -T
Re: [arch-dev-public] [signoff] gpm 1.20.3
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 1:02 PM, Eric Belanger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Tue, 22 Apr 2008, Dan McGee wrote: > > > > On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 10:01 PM, Aaron Griffin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 8:46 PM, Eric Belanger > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > in testing for both arches. > > > > > > > > Changes: > > > > > > > > - minor upstream update > > > > > > > > - patches cleanup. One of them has been merged upstream, the others > didn't > > > > applied anymore. However, they were mostly to prevent gpm from > interfering > > > > with some terminal apps like vim and mc. They don't seem to be > necessary > > > > anymore as vim and mc works correctly from the tests I did. > > > > > > > > - closes FS#9949 : The /usr/lib/libgpm.so.1 symlink was present on > the > > > > system but for unkonw reasons was no longer in the package. For this > reason, > > > > forcing is necessary to install gpm 1.20.3. I don't know how to > inform the > > > > users about this ( front page news? or just keep an eye on the > forum/ML to > > > > answer user's concern) > > > > > > Other than the need to force, this seems to be fine. Maybe a > > > pre_upgrade message that it is ok to force it? /me shrugs > > > > > > I'll signoff on i686 > > > > > > > I'll signoff for i686 as well. The force did catch me off guard > > though, it might be worth a news item. I actually didn't know that > > everyone would have to do it until I took a look at this signoff > > email. > > > > -Dan > > > > > > Any x86_64 signoff? > > I'll do a news item tonight and will post it here for a review. I can sign off. I didn't do any hard-core testing, but it broke nothing for me.
Re: [arch-dev-public] proftpd status
On Wed, 23 Apr 2008, Dan McGee wrote: On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 8:43 PM, Eric Belanger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Wed, 23 Apr 2008, eliott wrote: Because of this and because I don't use the package anymore, it would be better if someone else maintains it. Anyone interested? I have the updated PKGBUILD and script. If not we could: a) move it to unsupported as we already have several ftp servers in extra b) I would be willing to continue to maintain it but I'll need someone else to build/test/upload the x86_64 package as I can't test it. c) this is the more cumbersome. I could continue to maintain and build for both arches but every update will go to testing first for signoffs. Another option might be to release it to community (or maybe that is what you meant by unsupported). Maybe one of the TUs would want to take it over. Yes, I meant removing it from extra so it'll go to eitherunsupported or community if a TU is interested. Speaking on behalf of myself, I think it would be smart if we started shedding some packages from extra that we don't really use- we shouldn't feel obliged to maintain them just because someone else put them there and stuck us with them. Package maintenance can be a real bore if you aren't even interested in the package you are working on. So phrased shortly- if you don't use it and other devs don't have interest, throw it to unsupported where it may or may not get picked up by a TU. -Dan Yeah, I have a tendency of maintaining too much packages and having problems of letting them go. Anyhow, I've orphaned proftpd and above options b) and c) are no longer available. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
Re: [arch-dev-public] [signoff] gpm 1.20.3
On Tue, 22 Apr 2008, Dan McGee wrote: On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 10:01 PM, Aaron Griffin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 8:46 PM, Eric Belanger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > in testing for both arches. > > Changes: > > - minor upstream update > > - patches cleanup. One of them has been merged upstream, the others didn't > applied anymore. However, they were mostly to prevent gpm from interfering > with some terminal apps like vim and mc. They don't seem to be necessary > anymore as vim and mc works correctly from the tests I did. > > - closes FS#9949 : The /usr/lib/libgpm.so.1 symlink was present on the > system but for unkonw reasons was no longer in the package. For this reason, > forcing is necessary to install gpm 1.20.3. I don't know how to inform the > users about this ( front page news? or just keep an eye on the forum/ML to > answer user's concern) Other than the need to force, this seems to be fine. Maybe a pre_upgrade message that it is ok to force it? /me shrugs I'll signoff on i686 I'll signoff for i686 as well. The force did catch me off guard though, it might be worth a news item. I actually didn't know that everyone would have to do it until I took a look at this signoff email. -Dan Any x86_64 signoff? I'll do a news item tonight and will post it here for a review. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
Re: [arch-dev-public] Courier-MTA packages
On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 8:47 PM, Tobias Kieslich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Anyone who wants to take that package? I also will put all my knowledge > into the wiki where my old little setup is explained. I'll need to > update it though. I will also answer any questions another potential > maintainer has. If nobody wants to take it, I say let's keep > courier-authlib, maildrop and imap and let courier-mta go to community. > I'm also open to other solutions. If someone is not able to do this, I'm going to make a suggestion: Why don't we pull in a community member who actually uses this to maintain it. I am not suggesting another developer. I am suggesting a package maintainer to maintain just this package (for now). This is easily achievable using svnserve to lock down permissions. Opinions?
Re: [arch-dev-public] kernel26 2.6.25-1 enters [testing]
Am Sonntag, 20. April 2008 schrieb Andreas Radke: > Am Sun, 20 Apr 2008 10:27:02 +0200 > > schrieb Pierre Schmitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Am Samstag, 19. April 2008 18:09:08 schrieb Thomas Bächler: > > > If there are any problems due to the configuration changes or new > > > kernel bugs, please let me know. > > > > I got the following error when using the nvidia driver: > > > > > > NVRM: bad caching on address 0x81007c91a000: actual 0x173 != > > expected 0x17b > > NVRM: please see the README section on Cache Aliasing for more > > information NVRM: bad caching on address 0x81007c91b000: actual > > 0x173 != expected 0x17b > > NVRM: bad caching on address 0x81007cbad000: actual 0x173 != > > expected 0x17b > > NVRM: bad caching on address 0x81007cbb4000: actual 0x173 != > > expected 0x17b > > NVRM: bad caching on address 0x81007cbb5000: actual 0x173 != > > expected 0x17b > > NVRM: bad caching on address 0x81007cbb6000: actual 0x173 != > > expected 0x17b > > NVRM: bad caching on address 0x81007cbb7000: actual 0x173 != > > expected 0x17b > > NVRM: bad caching on address 0x81007cbb8000: actual 0x173 != > > expected 0x17b > > NVRM: bad caching on address 0x81007cbb9000: actual 0x173 != > > expected 0x17b > > NVRM: bad caching on address 0x81007cbba000: actual 0x173 != > > expected 0x17b > > > > Even when using the 173.08 beta driver which is meant for kernel > > 2.6.25 I got the same errors. Any ideas? > > Same here: > > NVRM: bad caching on address 0x81022ce78000: actual 0x173 != expected > 0x17b NVRM: please see the README section on Cache Aliasing for more > information NVRM: bad caching on address 0x81022ce79000: actual 0x173 > != expected 0x17b NVRM: bad caching on address 0x81022ce7a000: actual > 0x173 != expected 0x17b NVRM: bad caching on address 0x81022ce7b000: > actual 0x173 != expected 0x17b NVRM: bad caching on address > 0x81022ce7c000: actual 0x173 != expected 0x17b NVRM: bad caching on > address 0x81022ce7d000: actual 0x173 != expected 0x17b NVRM: bad > caching on address 0x81022ce7e000: actual 0x173 != expected 0x17b NVRM: > bad caching on address 0x81022ce7f000: actual 0x173 != expected 0x17b > NVRM: bad caching on address 0x81022c47a000: actual 0x173 != expected > 0x17b NVRM: bad caching on address 0x81022cac1000: actual 0x173 != > expected 0x17b > > but seems to work fine so far. > > -Andy same here also got the warnings, but seems to work greetings tpowa -- Tobias Powalowski Archlinux Developer & Package Maintainer (tpowa) http://www.archlinux.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [arch-dev-public] CVS links in AUR?
Fixed the archweb frontpage to reflect the cvs -> svn change. (changed the cvs link to svn, and modified the instructions therein.) Someone may want to make a news announcement.
