Re: [arch-dev-public] Drop VI from [core] (was Re: [arch-general] Winter Cleanup of [community])
Le 2013-01-25 11:58, Florian Pritz a écrit : On 25.01.2013 16:40, Stéphane Gaudreault wrote: I created a new thread exactly because I do not wanted this discussion to be hidden in something related to [community]. FWIW you didn't create a new thread, but you changed the subject in an existing one. Clients that use in-reply-to and references headers will still count that as one thread. ok, I was completely wrong and I apologize. The question remain unanswered : what do we do with this orphan/unmaintaned package ?It is a bit strange for me thata bleeding edge distribution as Arch present to his users a text editor from 1976during the installation.
Re: [arch-dev-public] Drop VI from [core] (was Re: [arch-general] Winter Cleanup of [community])
On 25.01.2013 16:40, Stéphane Gaudreault wrote: > I created a new thread exactly because I do not wanted this discussion > to be hidden in something related to [community]. FWIW you didn't create a new thread, but you changed the subject in an existing one. Clients that use in-reply-to and references headers will still count that as one thread. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [arch-dev-public] Drop VI from [core] (was Re: [arch-general] Winter Cleanup of [community])
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 8:40 AM, Stéphane Gaudreault wrote: > Le 2013-01-25 09:21, Pierre Schmitz a écrit : > >> Am 25.01.2013 14:03, schrieb Stéphane Gaudreault: >>> Let's wait a little 24 hours and if nobody object we will execute the >>> condemned. >> >> I am glad you give us 24 hours to change a default we had for years in >> Arch and might potentially break a lot. Especially considering this >> discussion was hidden in an unrelated thread about the [community] >> cleanup. > > I will take that as an objection ... I think Pierre's objection at the 24 hour ultimatum is quite reasonable. None of us are full-time employees here of Arch, so expecting every developer to acknowledge and respond to an email within 24 hours is a bit crazy. These type of things are in no rush to be decided on as far as I can tell, so any time before the next release would be fine. It is nice to give people at least a few days if not a week around here to respond. -Dan
Re: [arch-dev-public] Drop VI from [core] (was Re: [arch-general] Winter Cleanup of [community])
Le 2013-01-25 09:21, Pierre Schmitz a écrit : Am 25.01.2013 14:03, schrieb Stéphane Gaudreault: Le 2013-01-24 17:45, Allan McRae a écrit : There is nothing stopping us dropping vi completely and just putting vim on the install media... +1, vim could stay in [extra] and be included in the install media. Let's wait a little 24 hours and if nobody object we will execute the condemned. I am glad you give us 24 hours to change a default we had for years in Arch and might potentially break a lot. Especially considering this discussion was hidden in an unrelated thread about the [community] cleanup. Greetings, Pierre I will take that as an objection ... I created a new thread exactly because I do not wanted this discussion to be hidden in something related to [community]. The starting point of the discussion (beside the fact that vi is an unsable piece of crap) is that this package is orphan. If it is important for you, you are welcome to adopt it. Stéphane
Re: [arch-dev-public] [arch-general] Drop VI from [core] (was Re: Winter Cleanup of [community])
On 26/01/13 00:18, Pierre Schmitz wrote: > Am 24.01.2013 17:35, schrieb Dave Reisner: >> More seriously, POSIX says vi is optional for us: >> >> http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/vi.html >> >> Please remember that dropping it from [core] makes it in no way any less >> available. >> >> I've no problems with moving vi as long as it doesn't disappear from the >> install media. It's useful to have around long enough until you can pacman >> -S vim. > > If vi is removed from base/core we need to make sure that we don't > break other packages. E.g. some programs use vi as default or fallback > to it if EDITOR is not defined. E.g. visudo, crontab etc. Sure, we would need to dd some optdepends. > We once had vim as our vi implementation so I don't see any reason to > repeat history here. I took the history as the vi/vim/gvim all from various builds of vim did not work and we wanted to build from a split package and gvim needs to be in [extra] so there went vi. Has anyone ever been particularly satisfied with the vi in [core]? And it is not particularly maintained. There was a bug opened for about a year with a patch that got added last bug day. And the fact it needs three patches shows upstream is slow. I just checked and the last release was 24 Mar 2005. The point about the install iso increasing is size is valid... but then what proportion of people use it to install both an i686 and an x86_64 install? Allan
Re: [arch-dev-public] Drop VI from [core] (was Re: [arch-general] Winter Cleanup of [community])
Am 25.01.2013 14:03, schrieb Stéphane Gaudreault: > Le 2013-01-24 17:45, Allan McRae a écrit : >> There is nothing stopping us dropping vi completely and just putting vim >> on the install media... >> >> > +1, vim could stay in [extra] and be included in the install media. > Let's wait a little 24 hours and if nobody object we will execute the > condemned. I am glad you give us 24 hours to change a default we had for years in Arch and might potentially break a lot. Especially considering this discussion was hidden in an unrelated thread about the [community] cleanup. Greetings, Pierre -- Pierre Schmitz, https://pierre-schmitz.com
Re: [arch-dev-public] [arch-general] Drop VI from [core] (was Re: Winter Cleanup of [community])
Am 24.01.2013 17:35, schrieb Dave Reisner: > More seriously, POSIX says vi is optional for us: > > http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/vi.html > > Please remember that dropping it from [core] makes it in no way any less > available. > > I've no problems with moving vi as long as it doesn't disappear from the > install media. It's useful to have around long enough until you can pacman > -S vim. If vi is removed from base/core we need to make sure that we don't break other packages. E.g. some programs use vi as default or fallback to it if EDITOR is not defined. E.g. visudo, crontab etc. We once had vim as our vi implementation so I don't see any reason to repeat history here. I don't object against keeping vi on the install media. But putting vim on there is too much and really not needed. So -1 on that idea (see thread on arch-releng) -- Pierre Schmitz, https://pierre-schmitz.com
Re: [arch-dev-public] Drop VI from [core] (was Re: [arch-general] Winter Cleanup of [community])
Le 2013-01-24 17:45, Allan McRae a écrit : There is nothing stopping us dropping vi completely and just putting vim on the install media... +1, vim could stay in [extra] and be included in the install media. Let's wait a little 24 hours and if nobody object we will execute the condemned. Stéphane
Re: [arch-dev-public] Winter Cleanup of [extra]
On 25/01/13 12:08, Andrea Scarpino wrote: > On Friday 25 January 2013 11:58:05 Jelle van der Waa wrote: >> I orphaned tagpy, I don't know if anyone wants to maintain it? ( It's an >> optdep of sonata ). > > I renamed tagpy as python2-tagpy few hours ago since tagpy switched to python > 3. > >> I can't make the current release work with either repos version of boost >> or staging's version of boost. > > It was incompatible with taglib 1.8 and I already rebuilt it in community- > staging. Thanks, I didn't notice that. > >> If no one is willing to maintain it, I'll remove it from the repos. > > Angel? > signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [arch-dev-public] Winter Cleanup of [extra]
On Friday 25 January 2013 11:58:05 Jelle van der Waa wrote: > I orphaned tagpy, I don't know if anyone wants to maintain it? ( It's an > optdep of sonata ). I renamed tagpy as python2-tagpy few hours ago since tagpy switched to python 3. > I can't make the current release work with either repos version of boost > or staging's version of boost. It was incompatible with taglib 1.8 and I already rebuilt it in community- staging. > If no one is willing to maintain it, I'll remove it from the repos. Angel? -- Andrea Arch Linux Developer
Re: [arch-dev-public] Winter Cleanup of [extra]
On 24/01/13 20:50, Alexander Rødseth wrote: > Hi, > > I'm willing to adopt the unneeded orphans from [extra] if they are > moved to [community], except the perl-* packages. > For the i18n and spelling packages it's probably best if someone using > the respective languages adopts them, but I'm willing to adopt those > as well. > > - Alexander > I orphaned tagpy, I don't know if anyone wants to maintain it? ( It's an optdep of sonata ). I can't make the current release work with either repos version of boost or staging's version of boost. If no one is willing to maintain it, I'll remove it from the repos. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [arch-dev-public] Drop VI from [core] (was Re: [arch-general] Winter Cleanup of [community])
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 12:14 AM, Tom Gundersen wrote: > On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 11:45 PM, Allan McRae wrote: >> There is nothing stopping us dropping vi completely and just putting vim >> on the install media... > > I'd favor that (as a vim user who always gets confused by vi on the > install media). +1. I do this manually for each new installation. -- Sébastien "Seblu" Luttringer https://www.seblu.net GPG: 0x2072D77A
[arch-dev-public] Signoff report for [testing]
=== Signoff report for [testing] === https://www.archlinux.org/packages/signoffs/ There are currently: * 2 new packages in last 24 hours * 0 known bad packages * 0 packages not accepting signoffs * 9 fully signed off packages * 27 packages missing signoffs * 6 packages older than 14 days (Note: the word 'package' as used here refers to packages as grouped by pkgbase, architecture, and repository; e.g., one PKGBUILD produces one package per architecture, even if it is a split package.) == New packages in [testing] in last 24 hours (2 total) == * sudo-1.8.6.p5-1 (i686) * sudo-1.8.6.p5-1 (x86_64) == Incomplete signoffs for [core] (18 total) == * acl-2.2.51-3 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * bash-4.2.042-2 (i686) 1/2 signoffs * cracklib-2.8.22-1 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * filesystem-2013.01-1 (i686) 1/2 signoffs * gcc-4.7.2-4 (i686) 1/2 signoffs * glibc-2.17-2 (i686) 1/2 signoffs * iw-3.8-1 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * linux-api-headers-3.7.4-1 (i686) 1/2 signoffs * openvpn-2.3.0-1 (i686) 1/2 signoffs * reiserfsprogs-3.6.22-1 (i686) 1/2 signoffs * sudo-1.8.6.p5-1 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * wpa_supplicant-2.0-1 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * acl-2.2.51-3 (x86_64) 1/2 signoffs * cracklib-2.8.22-1 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * iw-3.8-1 (x86_64) 1/2 signoffs * linux-api-headers-3.7.4-1 (x86_64) 1/2 signoffs * reiserfsprogs-3.6.22-1 (x86_64) 1/2 signoffs * sudo-1.8.6.p5-1 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs == Incomplete signoffs for [extra] (9 total) == * efilinux-efi-1.0-4 (any) 1/2 signoffs * gummiboot-efi-15-2 (any) 1/2 signoffs * cairo-1.12.10-3 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * gnu-efi-libs-3.0s-3 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * qemu-1.3.0-1 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * wpa_supplicant_gui-2.0-1 (i686) 0/2 signoffs * cairo-1.12.10-3 (x86_64) 1/2 signoffs * gnu-efi-libs-3.0s-3 (x86_64) 1/2 signoffs * wpa_supplicant_gui-2.0-1 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs == Completed signoffs (9 total) == * lvm2-2.02.98-3 (i686) * bash-4.2.042-2 (x86_64) * filesystem-2013.01-1 (x86_64) * gcc-4.7.2-4 (x86_64) * glibc-2.17-2 (x86_64) * lvm2-2.02.98-3 (x86_64) * openvpn-2.3.0-1 (x86_64) * wpa_supplicant-2.0-1 (x86_64) * qemu-1.3.0-1 (x86_64) == All packages in [testing] for more than 14 days (6 total) == * lvm2-2.02.98-3 (i686), since 2012-11-03 * lvm2-2.02.98-3 (x86_64), since 2012-11-03 * qemu-1.3.0-1 (i686), since 2012-12-20 * qemu-1.3.0-1 (x86_64), since 2012-12-20 * reiserfsprogs-3.6.22-1 (i686), since 2013-01-09 * reiserfsprogs-3.6.22-1 (x86_64), since 2013-01-09 == Top five in signoffs in last 24 hours == 1. tomegun - 11 signoffs 2. andrea - 3 signoffs 3. fyan - 3 signoffs
